Another searing indictment by EyeOnThePost, again one is forced to wonder what motivates these reporters and editors. And, again time to support EyeOnThePost with donations and political support.

This comprehensive year-end summary deserves careful study. HonestReporting is one of many organizations fighting the good fight to expose the dishonesty in much mainstream reporting around the world regarding the Mideast conflict. I agree that CNN and Christine Amanpour deserve the booby prize this year. Now is a good time to make a contribution to HonestReporting and the other organizations that combat constant distortions of the truth about Israel and the Arabs.

However, I am disappointed that more attention has not been paid to the horrible reporting of the Washington Post. The editors and reporters and the ombudsman deserve the condemnation of all decent people regarding their stories and columns on the Middle East.

The world has turned upside down when I find myself agreeing more with Ol' Newt instead of the liberals I used to love. But here is a good argument that the world is indeed changing. Melaine Phillips has seen signs that Newt Gringrich is playing a similar role to that of Winston Churhill in the days preceding World War II. She quotes a speech of his to help prove her point: "So then you look at Saudi Arabia. The fact that we tolerate a country saying no Christian and no Jew can go to Mecca, and we start with the presumption that that's true while they attack Israel for being a religious state is a sign of our timidity, our confusion, our cowardice that is stunning. It's not complicated. We're inviting Saudi Arabia to come to Annapolis to talk about rights for Palestinians when nobody is saying, ‘Let's talk about rights for Christians and Jews in Saudi Arabia. Let's talk about rights for women in Saudi Arabia."

Recently the Supreme Court ruled by a 7 to 2 vote that federal judges have broad discretion when it comes to imposing prison sentences on those who violate the law by possessing crack cocaine. This will go a long way towards eliminating the disparity between penalties for powered cocaine and crack, which have proven to be de facto racial discrimination with 80% of the inmates in prison for crack violations being black. As many as 19, 500 federal prisoners convicted of offenses involving crack cocaine could have their jail time reduced.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism presents us with an astounding story that can not help but to remind one of the classic film 12 Angry Men. One juror alleges that bullying by another juror was the real reason behind the acquittals in the terrorism-support trial of the five Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) officials

Rebeca Chapa has written about a Saudi Arabian woman who was gang raped because she met an ex-boyfriend to retrieve a photograph of herself. Known as the “Qatif woman," she was sentenced to 90 lashes for her crime. When her lawyer spoke to the media about the case he lost his license and the punishment was increased to 200 lashes, as well as, six months in jail. Chapa expresses the hope that, ”In a perverse way, the Saudi justice system's zeal for unjustly punishing the Qatif woman may be the best thing to happen to women's rights. It has shed yet more light on a problem too many women have suffered for too long.”

A special report in today’s Washington Times details the millions of dollars being given by wealthy Saudis to academia here in the United States. Reporter Julia Duin acknowledges the controversial nature of these gifts saying that, ”Some call the Saudi gift Arab generosity and gratitude for the years American universities have educated the elite of the Arab world. Others say the sheer size of the donations amounts to buying influence and creating bastions of non-critical pro-Islamic scholarship within academia.” Also, she quotes Martin S. Kramer an author of Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America as arguing that, ”Of course, this is why we can't ever expect to get the straight story on Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism and oil from people who operate within Middle Eastern studies. If you want a fabulously wealthy Saudi royal to drop out of the sky in his private jet and leave a few million, you had better watch what you say - which means you had better say nothing.”

The print version of this report contains the following chart:
Saudi King Fasial, $1 million, University of Southern California, 1976
Saudi government, $200,000, Duke University, 1978
Saudi King Fahd, $5 million, Harvard Law School, 1983
Saudi royal family, $250,000, UC Santa Barbra, 1984
Saudi royal family, $1 million, UC Santa Barbra, 1994
Adnan Khashoggi, $5 million, American University/DC, 1986
Saudi businessmen, $1 million, Rice University, 1996
Anonymous donors, $250,000, Columbia University, 2003
Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, $20 million, Harvard University, 2005
Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, $20 million, Georgetown University, 2005
Saudi King Fahd, $20 million University of Arkansas, 1993
Sultan Foundation, $5 million, UC Berkeley, 1998
Saudi Alireza family, $2 million, UC Berkeley, 1998
Prince Alwaleed, $10 million, Weill Cornell medical college, 2005
Prince Alwaleed, $10 million, American University/Cairo, 2000
Prince Alwaleed, $5 million, American University/Beirut, 2003
Khalid Al-Turki, $2 million, Harvard University, 2001

I just returned from speaking at the European Parliament and found to my regret even more evidence of the distortions on the part of the liberal MSM, in this case again the Washington Post. Please spread the word to everyone you know. And as I have said before send a donation or two to EyeOnThePost,org.

Rolling Stone has recently made available a comprehensive history of drug prohibition’s last thirty five years of consistent failure. The article is by contributing editor Ben Wallace Wells and is titled How America Lost the War on Drugs.

Alan Dershowitz discusses the disparity of free speech rights with regard to the Middle East taking place on American college campuses. He argues on The Huffington Post that those who oppose Israel have much more latitude than those who support Israel. He ends his essay with the very sensible plea for all to ”support complete free speech for every perspective relating to the Middle East, not just for perspectives supported by the hard left.”

The mainstay of the prohibitionist argument is the idea that if drugs were legalized then there would be a widespread increase in use. The DRCNet is presenting strong evidence that this notion simply is not true. It comes in the form of a Zogby Poll that asks the question; "If hard drugs such as heroin or cocaine were legalized, would you be likely to use them?" Only 0.6% of the respondents said yes.

Calling Afghanistan an "occupied Muslim land." Osama bin Laden is preparing his followers for attacks in Europe. Walid Phares, director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, informs us of this in a column published by The Washington Times. He asserts that; ”The forthcoming attacks are being prepared now with al Qaeda propaganda mentioning former and current British Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, Spanish President Jose Maria Aznar and French President Nicolas Sarkozy. What links all these leaders in the mind of bin Laden? It is not only the past; rather it is the future. The supreme commander knows global jihad has begun in that continent. Salafists have already waged violence in Europe and the so-called youth gangs in France's suburbs - manipulated by the radical clerics - are at war with the French state. Al Qaeda wants to claim it, own it and boast about it. That's what is on bin Laden's mind.”

There is no doubt that this continues and forces any sensible person to wonder why. Perhaps it is because the left or the liberals have been infected with some strange malady that affects their reason. Because I have been on the left most of my life I still do not understand this. I wrote the ombudsman of the Post a few days ago asking if she could identify one story discussing Israel and the Palestinians wherein the impression was given that the Israelis were the good guys. No response yet.

Eye on The Post deserves the support of all my readers at this time of holiday gift giving.

While he did not see a lasting peace or even the advancement of Israeli and American interests as being the outcome of the Annapolis meeting Daniel Pipes now perceives at least one positive development. That being Israeli Prime Minister Ehurd Olmert’s break with that country’s previous leaders by insisting that the Palestinians accept Israel's permanent existence as a Jewish state.

This, of course, engendered a very negative response from many Arab commentators. For example Saeb Erekat, head of the PLO Negotiations Department asserted that, "The Palestinians will never acknowledge Israel's Jewish identity. … There is no country in the world where religious and national identities are intertwined." Pipes responds to this by pointing out that, “56 states and the PLO belong to the Organization of the Islamic Conference” and that, “the religious-national nexus extends well beyond Muslim countries. Argentinean law, Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe points out, ‘mandates government support for the Roman Catholic faith. Queen Elizabeth II is the supreme governor of the Church of England. In the Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan, the constitution proclaims Buddhism the nation's ‘spiritual heritage.' … ‘The prevailing religion in Greece,' declares Section II of the Greek Constitution, ‘is that of the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ'."

I will be attending and speaking at a conference of visionaries and idealists at the European Parliament in Brussels this week, December 5-8. One of the lead organizations is the Transnational Radical Party. I am a member of the governing General Council. The other major sponsoring organization is the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) which functions within the European Union, These wonderful people support all sorts of moral projects that at times seem hopelessly idealistic and at the same time contain much hope for the future. One of their most important initiatives is promoting the creation of an international Community of Democracies which could lead to a World Organization of Democracies. In my mind this could supplant the corrupt and biased UN. Here is a recent description of this major effort which will be discussed at the EU later this week.

It is a pleasant surprise to keep encountering signs of hope -- or Sparks of Hope, as I tentatively title my next book -- that demonstrate that some Muslims are displaying courage and wisdom in suggesting a more peaceful and personal version of their religion. The latest I have discovered is Moez Masoud, a televangelist who openly advocates a new version of Islam that includes concern for love and relationships among the young, tolerance toward non-Muslims and also tolerance regarding homosexuals. That is just the start. Such approaches would lead to major changes in the threat of constant wars over perceived insults to that religion.

On the pages of The Wall Street Journal Bernard Lewis, professor emeritus at Princeton and the author most recently of From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East, discusses prospects for progress towards Middle East peace at the Annapolis summit. He argues that if the issue on the table is the size of Israel then there is a reasonable chance for a positive outcome. However, ”if, on the other hand, the issue is the existence of Israel, then clearly it is insoluble by negotiation. There is no compromise position between existing and not existing, and no conceivable government of Israel is going to negotiate on whether that country should or should not exist.”

What follows is an interesting and very important discussion of the unintended consequences of a too generous heart. American policy makers should take heed.

VETERANS JOURNAL September 11, 2007 -- By Susan MacAllen

In 1978 - even in Copenhagen, one didn't see Muslim immigrants. The Danish population embraced visitors, celebrated the exotic, went out of its way to protect each of its citizens. It was proud of its new brand of socialist liberalism - one in development since the conservatives had lost power in 1929 - a system where no worker had to struggle to survive, where one ultimately could count upon the state as in, perhaps, no other western nation at the time. The rest of Europe saw the Scandinavians as free-thinking, progressive and infinitely generous in their welfare policies. Denmark boasted low crime rates, devotion to the environment, a superior educational system and a history of humanitarianism.

Denmark was also most generous in its immigration policies - it offered the best welcome in Europe to the new immigrant: generous welfare payments from first arrival plus additional perks in transportation, housing and education.. It was determined to set a world example for inclusiveness and multiculturalism. How could it have predicted that one day in 2005 a series of political cartoons in a newspaper would spark violence that would leave dozens dead in the streets - all because its commitment to multiculturalism would come back to bite?

By the 1990's the growing urban Muslim population was obvious - and its unwillingness to integrate into Danish society was obvious. Years of immigrants had settled into Muslim-exclusive enclaves. As the Muslim leadership became more vocal about what they considered the decadence of Denmark's liberal way of life, the Danes - once so welcoming - began to feel slighted. Many Danes had begun to see Islam as incompatible with their long-standing values: belief in personal liberty and free speech, in equality for women, in tolerance for other ethnic groups, and a deep pride in Danish heritage and history.

The New York Post in 2002 ran an article by Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard, in which they forecasted accurately that the growing immigrant problem in Denmark would explode. In the article they reported:

"Muslim immigrants constitute 5 percent of the population but consume upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending."

"Muslims are only 4 percent of Denmark's 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country's convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non-Muslim. Similar, if lesser, disproportions are found in other crimes."

"Over time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers, they wish less to mix with the indigenous population. A recent survey finds that only 5 percent of young Muslim immigrants would readily marry a Dane."

"Forced marriages - promising a newborn daughter in Denmark to a male cousin in the home country, then compelling her to marry him, sometimes on pain of death - are one problem."

"Muslim leaders openly declare their goal of introducing Islamic law once Denmark's Muslim population grows large enough - a not-that-remote prospect. If present trends persist, one sociologist estimates, every third inhabitant of Denmark in 40 years will be Muslim."

It is easy to understand why a growing number of Danes would feel that Muslim immigrants show little respect for Danish values and laws. An example is the phenomenon common to other European countries and the U.S.: some Muslims in Denmark who opted to leave the Muslim faith have been murdered in the name of Islam, while others hide in fear for their lives. Jews are also threatened and harassed openly by Muslim leaders in Denmark, a country where once Christian citizens worked to smuggle out nearly all of their 7,000 Jews by night to Sweden - before the Nazis could invade. I think of my Danish friend Elsa - who as a teenager had dreaded crossing the street to the bakery every morning under the eyes of occupying Nazi soldiers - and I wonder what she would say today.

In 2001, Denmark elected the most conservative government in some 70 years - one that had some decidedly non-generous ideas about liberal unfettered immigration. Today Denmark has the strictest immigration policies in Europe. (Its effort to protect itself has been met with accusations of "racism" by liberal media across Europe - even as other governments struggle to right the social problems wrought by years of too-lax immigration.) If you wish to become Danish, you must attend three years of language classes. You must pass a test on Denmark's history, culture, and a Danish language test. You must live in Denmark for 7 years before applying for citizenship. You must demonstrate an intent to work, and have a job waiting. If you wish to bring a spouse into Denmark, you must both be over 24 years of age, and you won't find it so easy any more to move your friends and family to Denmark with you. You will not be allowed to build a mosque in Copenhagen. Although your children have a choice of some 30 Arabic culture and language schools in Denmark, they will be strongly encouraged to assimilate to Danish society in ways that past immigrants weren't.

In 2006, the Danish minister for employment, Claus Hjort Frederiksen, spoke publicly of the burden of Muslim immigrants on the Danish welfare system, and it was horrifying: the government's welfare committee had calculated that if immigration from Third World countries were blocked, 75 percent of the cuts needed to sustain the huge welfare system in coming decades would be unnecessary. In other words, the welfare system as it existed was being exploited by immigrants to the point of eventually bankrupting the government. "We are simply forced to adopt a new policy on immigration. The calculations of the welfare committee are terrifying and show how unsuccessful the integration of immigrants has been up to now," he said.

A large thorn in the side of Denmark's imams is the Minister of Immigration and Integration, Rikke Hvilshoj. She makes no bones about the new policy toward immigration, "The number of foreigners coming to the country makes a difference," Hvilshoj says, "There is an inverse correlation between how many come here and how well we can receive the foreigners that come." And on Muslim immigrants needing to demonstrate a willingness to blend in, "In my view, Denmark should be a country with room for different cultures and religions. Some values, however, are more important than others. We refuse to question democracy, equal rights, and freedom of speech."

Hvilshoj has paid a price for her show of backbone. Perhaps to test her resolve, the leading radical imam in Denmark, Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban, demanded that the government pay blood money to the family of a Muslim who was murdered in a suburb of Copenhagen, stating that the family's thirst for revenge could be thwarted for money. When Hvilshoj dismissed his demand, he argued that in Muslim culture the payment of retribution money was common, to which Hvilshoj replied that what is done in a Muslim country is not necessarily what is done in Denmark. The Muslim reply came soon after: her house was torched while she, her husband and children slept. All managed to escape unharmed, but she and her family were moved to a secret location and she and other ministers were assigned bodyguards for the first time - in a country where such murderous violence was once so scarce. Her government has slid to the right, and her borders have tightened.

Many believe that what happens in the next decade will determine whether Denmark survives as a bastion of good living, humane thinking and social responsibility, or whether it becomes a nation at civil war with supporters of Sharia law.

And meanwhile, Americans clamor for stricter immigration policies, and demand an end to state welfare programs that allow many immigrants to live on the public dole. As we in America look at the enclaves of Muslims amongst us, and see those who enter our shores too easily, dare live on our taxes, yet refuse to embrace our culture, respect our traditions, participate in our legal system, obey our laws, speak our language, appreciate our history, etc ?.. .

We would do well to look to Denmark, and say a prayer for her future and for our own.

"History does not entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

At a town hall meeting in New Hampshire police officer Bradley Jardis, a speaker with Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (L.E.A.P.) asked presidential candidate John McCain a question. Jardis said, "I've served here in my state as a law enforcement officer for going on 9 years now, and after nine years working the street, I've come to the conclusion that the War on Drugs is a terrible failure... I have seen firsthand that the War on Drugs causes crime, it causes children to have access to drugs easier, and it does nothing to curb the problem of drug abuse. Just like Alcohol Prohibition after the 18th Amendment passed, the country wised up and we passed the 21st Amendment which curbed the violence problem in this country greatly. What is it going to take for powerful politicians such as yourself to realize that the War on Drugs is a failure and we need to... we need to get smart about drugs, not tough. We need to be smart." McCain made it clear in his response that if elected he will not be smart.

The Amazing Nonie Darwish must be heard again!

Yesterday, I put on the site two comments relating to the threat of Islam inside America. One problem with the new technology is that it is so easy to put material on the Internet and spread it around the world. I read over the material to which I had linked and -- to show the complexity of the subject -- I was disturbed by parts of it. For example, I certainly do not believe that all Muslims are terrorists. On the other hand, I do believe that most of the facts in that material are correct. If so, then we are ignoring real threats to the security of the country by being too naive. Is that true? I would be interested in receiving comments on any side of this important matter.

Here are some names and pictures and messages from leading Muslims in the United States. The standard mainstream response is that only bigots and rascists would post such a list. If so, call me any of those names and more, but please do read this.

It is difficult to see how anyone can read this list and not be appalled on many grounds. Again the instinctive mainstream American response is that the list itself shows proof of Islamophobia. I would submit it shows just the opposite.

Like many people in this little town, I have developed a virulent case of a common Washington disease: revulsion at the very name of Bob Novak. I have come to dislike him, his arrogant personality, and his utterances. I contracted the disease years ago when I sometimes appeared opposite him on CNN’s “Crossfire” and faced his perpetual sneer. Every time I read his newspaper column over breakfast these days, the revulsion recurs.

That feeling of revulsion has come back in full flower for me and many others at his latest caper. He recently reported in his column that the Clinton campaign was in possession of a bit of juicy damaging information about her main rival, Barak Obama, but for various reasons the Clintonistas were not divulging the dirt, yet. The derogatory column was instantly attacked as slovenly journalism replete with unconfirmed rumors.

As Sam Stein just wrote in The Huffington Post, Novak took to the Fox Network to defend the controversial column, and after seeing the segment Stein observed that the “smear column is even weaker than it first appeared.” I agree especially after seeing a clip of Novak’s appearance myself. He did not receive the rumor directly but heard it from someone who had heard it from someone else. He did not go to Clinton staff and seek confirmation. This reveals the sleazy side of Bob Novak once again.

It amazes me that in light of such antics Novak seems to have such power in this town and that his columns have appeared for years in major newspapers such as The Washington Post. It also amazes me that I spent a good part of last summer reading his latest book, a memoir on his fifty years of reporting in Washington : The Prince of Darkness. Perhaps like so many other people in this town I keep trying to understand the enigma of Bob Novak.

Here are my often contradictory reflections on my long summer read.

While it pains me to say it, this is a truly important book. It demonstrates that at times Robert Novak appears to be a brilliant, hard working, tough, courageous reporter, much admired by legions of colleagues. He provides valuable inside views of powerful governmental figures and adds to the historical record of important elections and the manner in which major policy decisions were made.

In so many respects he is admirably honest. Novak makes clear that he has a doctrinaire conservative point of view and evaluates politicians through that lens. He admits that for many years he was addicted to alcohol and that he committed some pugnacious blunders - like actually hitting people -- due to consumption of gallons of that poisonous drug. Moreover, he reveals in great detail his income from all sources, including television.

Of course, I found much to criticize in that book as I have in this column. Consider his pettiness in insulting by name anyone who did him wrong over the past half century. In the book he maligns the reputations of dozens of people who now have the choice of ignoring him or mounting a defense that will simply call attention to his contemptuous assault on their competence and characters. This fits exactly what he did again to both Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Then there is Israel . Robert Novak is part of that large group of journalists who seem unable to say anything good about that country. Criticism of Israeli official actions is rampant in the free Israeli press, but Novak joins other purveyors of darkness around the world who scandalously distort basic facts. He and his late partner, Rowland Evans, have spewed out column after column over decades spreading consistently negative interpretations of any incident involving the Jewish state.

Some of these biased nuggets, such as the allegedly intentional Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty, appear scattered throughout the pages of this book. Moreover, Novak hints that American Jews have conspired to silence him by using dark and evil methods. He denies vehemently that he is anti-Semitic but one could be forgiven for believing that the rank odor of this ancient hate swirls about him.

His column on the Plame affair caused Novak more grief than any other. On July 11, 2003, he wrote, “ Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction.” Wilson is of course Joseph Wilson, the former diplomat who had been sent on a mission to Niger by the CIA to see if that country had been involved in providing nuclear material to Iraq. Wilson trumpeted that he had found no such evidence and that President Bush had lied when he included the famous sixteen words in his 2003 State of the Union address. That allegation supported the widespread claim that Bush had lied America into the Iraq war.

It was also widely claimed that the Bush Administration had conspired to out a CIA agent in order to destroy the credibility of her husband. Novak has convinced me in this book that he was not an agent of the White House as part of such a campaign. What he has not done is justify in my eyes his releasing the name of a CIA employee for the purposes of proving his continued journalistic prowess. He suffered a criminal investigation by the FBI, by special prosecutor Fitzgerald, and by a grand jury. It was concluded that he had not violated any law and he was eventually, after years of distress, free as a bird. However, many people, including old powerful colleagues, still treat him as if he were pond scum, even a traitor as a direct result of his revealing Plame’s status.

In perhaps the ultimate manifestation of his arrogance, Novak still doesn’t get it. He continues to brag that because he was not indicted, this proves he did nothing wrong. Near the end of his book, he referred to his delight “in showing my contempt for a trivial incident that had been exaggerated into a scandal by the Left and its outriders in the news media.”

That was one of the truly ugly elements in this fascinating memoir. My hope has been that the decent side of this intrepid reporter will emerge in time for him to publicly admit that it was indeed wrong … and yes truly ugly. The latest Obama-Clinton affair suggests to me that my hope will take a long time to be realized.

Much of the world has no idea what Thanksgiving means to America. Here the usually perceptive Mark Steyn explains what is does mean -- and also suggests that the whole world ought to give thanks for this country.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) held a conference in Washington DC on October 22nd and 23rd with the title Overcoming Extremism: Protecting Civilians from Terrorist Violence. The object of the meeting was to ”develop a shared international agenda for protecting civilians from terrorist violence.” Plenary Session III can be viewed here.

The alleged killing of a Palestinian boy, Muhammad al-Dura, in September of 2000 by the Israeli army provoked a great deal of retaliatory violence and condemnation from the world’s media. Charles Enderlin, Jerusalem bureau chief for the France 2 television network, broke the story and it distributed a 55-second film of the death to all the other networks free of charge. Subsequently, substantial evidence has emerged that in fact the event was staged.

In November 2004 one of the critics of the France 2 story, Philippe Karsenty, published an article on his website, Media Ratings, about the incident and France 2 decided to sue him for defamation. Karsenty lost in court and then appealed. The raw footage taken by France 2 has been shown in open court on November 14, 2007. This was covered by HonestReporting whose witnesses said there is virtually no evidence that Israel had anything to do with the death, if it even occurred.

How soon should we expect contrite comments sympathetic to Israel, and condemnation of Palestinian distortions from the likes of Jimmy Carter, Bob Novak and other Arab apologists such those on the editorial pages of The Washington Post?

Ron Paul’s call for ending foreign aid to all countries including Israel and the unsavory nature of some people who publicly support him have caused the charge that he is anti-Semitic to circulate. Many responsible commentators believe the charge to be true. However, the Jewish Theological Seminary’s news service JTA examines the question in depth and it finds an argument that in fact such an end to aid would benefit Israel. They quote Paul as saying that, “our foreign military aid to Israel is actually more like corporate welfare to the U.S. military industrial complex, as Israel is forced to purchase only U.S. products with the assistance. We send almost twice as much aid to other countries in the Middle East, which only insures increased militarization and the drive toward war.” He also asserts that the American control over policy, which comes with the assistance, limits Israeli options and hurts progress towards peace.

In addition, the JTA discovered that though it is not widespread there is some support for the Ron Paul candidacy within the Jewish community. It includes groups such as Jews For Ron Paul and Zionists For Ron Paul.

Heather Mac Donald writing about the recent protests over racial injustice in Jena Louisiana for the City Journal asks the question; “does it follow that this latest object of frenzy on the media’s racism beat is emblematic of America’s judicial system or the state of race relations today?” She answers with a thoughtful well reasoned, but sure to be controversial, no. Mac Donald concludes that “the Jena situation is undoubtedly a bit more complex than the tale that the press has woven of hate-filled whites and peace-loving blacks. But even if it were not, the catharsis that this morality play has offered to its participants is spurious. The real tragedy is the dysfunctional culture that holds back too many blacks from seizing the many opportunities open to them.”

Moreover, she lays out a challenge to all those concerned with the status of blacks in American society to face the disturbing fact that the civilizing institution of marriage, along with the presence of fathers raising their own children, has all but disappeared from many black communities. This is a tragedy for all of us black, white, and polka dot. So called black leaders like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson almost never mention this awful reality. Thank heaven thoughtful leaders like Bill Cosby and Alvin F. Poussaint, who just put out a book, titled Come On People; On the Path From Victims to Victors, are facing the situation and calling upon blacks to deal with it responsibly.

But Melanie Phillips always is worth reading (see here and here) to understand the full extent of their confusion. Of course, this is not to say we in the US have a clear idea of what to do.

Great Britain’s Channel 4 has broadcast a documentary on the persecution faced by Muslims who convert to Christianity that is now taking place in the United Kingdom. According to a disturbingly large percentage of Muslims, living in a land renown for its religious toleration, the penalty for conversion should be death.

Nicolas Sarkozy, the new President of France, eloquently explains why the French American alliance means so much to him and why it must and will continue. He asserts that "the United States and France remain true to the memory of their common history, true to the blood spilled by their children in common battles. But they are not true merely to the memory of what they accomplished together in the past. They remain true, first and foremost, to the same ideal, the same principles, the same values that have always united them.”

On the website of the Wall Street Journal Arthur Herman, author of the upcoming volume Gandhi & Churchill, offers a powerful history lesson concerning Winston Churchill and his support for ”the bedrock of traditional Western moral and political principles”, the Jews. He recommends the book Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship by Mark Gilbert and argues that ”Churchill offers the powerful example of a Western statesman who--unlike other statesmen in his own time and ours--understood the malignant nature of anti-Semitism and did what he could to oppose its toxic effects.”

An essay published by Investment Business Daily which is titled ”Close the D.C. Madrassa” highlights The Washington Post’s, which supports the institution’s continued existence, tolerance for Islamic intolerance. The editorial quotes from an eighth grade text used by the school in question: ”The apes are Jews, the people of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christians, the infidels of the communion of Jesus."

Matthew Kaminski, editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal Europe, updates us on the life and views of the courageous former Soviet refusenik and Israeli government minister Natan Sharansky. He tells us that a big concern of the ex-dissident ”is the West's own weak stomach. This is a familiar theme for Mr. Sharansky and others who waged the Cold War battle on the other side of the Wall. Prosperous, stable societies can lack, by these lights, moral clarity and courage and are prone to cynical compromises or gullibility. Under totalitarianism the challenge is to fight evil (he paraphrases the British writer Melanie Phillips), and in free societies it is to see evil.”

In an article for Frontpagemag.com Robert Spencer presents some numbers that offer scant comfort. Using data reported by columnist Michael Freund, he shows us recent disturbing survey results: ”25% of Muslims in Britain approved of the July 7, 2005 jihad terror bombings in London; 30% said they would rather live under Sharia than in a Western pluralistic society. 44% of Muslims in Nigeria thought suicide attacks were “often” or “sometimes” justified, with only 28% rejecting them in all cases. Roughly 14% of Muslims in France, Britain and Spain approved of suicide attacks against civilian targets, and only 45% of Muslims in Egypt considered terror never justified.”

Spencer also makes a good point about the contention that the term “Islamo-Fascism” is an attack against all Muslims, arguing that it is no different than “'white racism' or 'Italian fascism,' which no one has ever taken to suggest that all whites are racists or all Italians fascists.”

Former Republican Congressman J.C. Watts and Pat Nolan Vice President of the Prison Fellowship Ministries have written an editorial calling for an end to crack and powder cocaine sentencing disparities. They report that a group of four lawmakers (Republican Senators Jeff Sessions of Alabama and John Cornyn of Texas, and Democratic Senators Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Ken Salazar of Colorado) are pushing legislation to deal with the current 100-1 discrepancy.

Watts and Nolan argue that this, “disparity was passed in 1986 and based largely on the assertion that crack cocaine was more dangerous than powder cocaine, that it was instantly addictive and that it caused violent behavior. Since then, copious scientific evidence and U.S. Sentencing Commission analysis have shown that these assertions, which were not supported by sound data, were exaggerated or even outright false. The disparity has resulted in a hugely disproportionate number of black Americans sentenced under this mandatory-minimum law. While the intent was not to single out one racial demographic over another, the impact of these laws amounted to discrimination.”

Frontpagemag.com features an interesting and wide ranging interview with the author of Schmoozing With Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy Land, Jihadists Reveal Their Global Plans to a Jew!, Aaron Klein. He and Jamie Glazoz discuss how terrorist leaders view aspects of America culture including who they would like to win the next election.

The upcoming Annapolis peace conference has prompted the organization.eyeonthepost.org to issue alerts making the public aware of the biased reporting on the Middle East which appears in The Washington Post. They give four recent examples of coverage slanted against Israel that have occurred within just the last ten days.

Eyeonthepost argues that this is significant because; "The Post's anti-Israel, pro-Arab propaganda pieces are syndicated in scores of newspapers around the US and the world. The Post's bias is a problem not only for residents of the Washington, DC area but for all news consumers who hope for and expect balanced and truthful reporting. Please forward these alerts to everyone you know with an interest in critically examining the news coverage of the Israel-Arab conflict. Let them see how a newspaper with a reputation for quality news reporting is not living up to its reputation."

This is another alarming report from a woman who should be regarded as a true hero. Because she speaks uncomfortable truths she is not allowed to speak freely on American campuses.

Read this interview and you will realize why I have focused on Ms. Darwish and Muslim dissenters like her as the subject of my next book. What guts! What a powerful argument for change!

Back in 2001 Bill Maher lost his TV show for asserting that while the acts of the 9-11 terrorists were abhorrent they were not cowardly. In a column appearing in today’s Washington Times Louis Rene Beres a professor of international law at Purdue University makes the counterargument that the perpetrators were in fact cowards. Beres asserts their motivation involved an attempt to escape lives on earth, made intolerable by among other things unnatural sexual repression, to ones of eternal bliss. Therefore military options will be ineffective because as he puts it such, “policies and postures will always fall on deaf ears. These prospects will never be received by our enemies with apprehension, but, instead, with a delirious cry of joy or even with a collective groan of fulfillment. Islamist terror is not about politics. It is about ecstasy.”

Instead Beres maintains that in order to, ”deter the Islamist suicide terrorist plotting now underway in Iraq, Israel, Europe and also the United States itself, we must confront this enemy with a tangible threat of real suicide. Let us recall that violence and the sacred remain inseparable for the Islamist suicide fighter. We should think, immediately, in terms of ‘desacrilizing’ this enemy's explicit inversions of holiness. Without thinking about how to accomplish this desacrilization, our war on terrorists who ‘love death’ will remain based on narrowly operational grounds. Then we would surely fail.” Certainly, a large part of this desacrilizing effort must be taken up by moderate Muslims.

Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME) is presenting a very interesting article by Andrew G. Bostom about Kaaba rage. Muslim students in the northern Kashmir city of Baramulla are protesting the shape of a building in New York City calling it an insult to Islam. Bostom links this phenomenon to some very ancient forms of Islamic anti-Semitism.

I do not feel I have been sufficiently clear or complete in my discussion of American University and Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week (IFAW). As is generally well-known, I spent many years teaching at that university and have great affection for it and its people. I am particularly delighted that my old friend, Neil Kerwin, ended up as the new President of the place recently.

At the same time, I do believe that there is a rigid liberal/multicultural slant to much of what goes on there. I have no great complaint with that fact except when the slant produces ugly results. This seemed to have occurred when it was decided that the university would not participate in IFAW. As far as I can tell, this decision was made by an amorphous group of students and faculty, with the greatest burden being taken by the students. At least that is my guess. In any event, the faculty and deans must take some of the responsibility because the decision reflects the culture of the place which I have often observed. What triggered my outrage, though, was the editorial in the student newspaper, The Eagle, which bragged about the fact that the Week would not be celebrated on the campus. The reasons given were that the content of the Week was hysterical and extreme and that it was insulting to all Muslims.

This is a campus that welcomed with open arms the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the US in January. There was no outrage exhibited by the students who listened to his talk nor by the reporter who wrote a story about the visit in The Eagle. Thus American University, my old school, has a record which suggests that it accepts the devious words of the representative of one of the most repressive Islamic societies in the world -- without dissent and without a complaint from anyone on campus -- a place where a vicious form of human repression or fascism is the ruling dogma of the society, yet my old school will not even allow IFAW on campus so that the issues can be debated.

I suggest that The Eagle should be renamed The Gelding. I wonder what the new name for the university should be if these trends continue and are not reversed.

There is a huge new effort in Europe to combat the surrender of Europe to the forces of Islamization and the imposition of Sharia law. It is a fascinating story with both bad news and good news. The bad -- the fears of the particpants that it is too late to save some European countries. The good -- that this organization exists and is starting to fight back in a coordinated fashion.

I am not in love with the folks behind Islamo Fascism Awareness Week but to both deny they should be on campus and to crow about it as the Eagle editors do in the essay below -- well that is so sad. Is the university losing its soul? It hosted the Saudi ambassador in January but won't even consider letting this event happen on the campus.

American University Eagle staff editorial, October 18, 2007
While the student organizers at Georgetown and George Washington universities will soon join nearly 100 other schools in commemorating Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, the normally socially active voices at AU have decided to remain silent. With the exception of a few counterdiscussions on race and religion, AU will not participate in the conservative event sponsored by David Horowitz's Freedom Center.

None of the clubs or organizations on campus chose to "confront the two big lies of the political left," as the planning Web site promoted. None chose to raise awareness of how Islam represses the rights of women and gay people, as also stated on the Web site. None chose to "memorialize" victims of Islamic terror or pass out petitions asking students and professors to pick a side: us or them.

Though AU students love to voice their minds and have opinions on everything from stem cells to composting, this decision to not join the debate is an even stronger demonstration of our university's commitment to crosscultural understanding and fair dialogue.

Events like Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week serve to pigeonhole communities and complex ideas into simple black-and-white, good-versus-evil blocs. They target radical sects present in almost every religion or culture and project such abnormalities onto those who are peace-loving, good-hearted citizens.

No one can condone terror. Whether perpetrated by militant groups of Irish Catholics, anti-abortion Christians or small, angry branches of Islamic cults, professing a belief through physical violence and pressuring politics through fear is never permissible or just, yet furthering stereotypes will not end Islamic terror. In fact, fueling racism and bigotry only adds to the divide and animosity between the many people we call American.

AU students are right to step away from the propagandist and biased activities of Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week. Though our silence cannot bridge such entrenched prejudices, denying a voice to extremists starts to close the gap that prevents acceptance.

Columnist Maureen Dowd talks about Rudy Giuliani’s likely support for Israel if he is elected president and his unwillingness to be intimidated by Arab interests. She quotes him, in regard to the Democratic candidates’ self imposed ban on the words Islamic terrorist, as saying they, “have a very hard time getting those words out of their mouth, I think it’s quite clear to me now, having listened to seven or eight of their debates, that they think it’s politically incorrect to say the words. I don’t know exactly who they think they’re offending. I don’t know what kind of view of the world they have. I understand when I say ‘Islamic terrorism,’ I’m not offending all of Islam. I’m not offending all of the Arab world. I’m offending exactly who I want to offend and making it clear to them that we stand against them.”

The Chief Constable of the North Wales Police, Richard Brunstrom, has issued a courageous report that calls for the legalization of drugs with its author saying the current strategy is ”unworkable and immoral.” The document, titled Drug Policy - a radical look ahead, also recommends that his organization work with the Tranform Drug Policy Foundation, a leading British drug policy reform group, to achieve a change in policy.

The statement is remarkably well documented with 128 footnotes and has a thorough discussion of the historical factors, including the role of the United States government, that have created the present situation. The author also makes it clear that he is in no way the only one who has reached similar conclusions. Chief Constable Brunstrom argues that, ”If policy on drugs is in the future to be pragmatic and not moralistic, driven by ethics not dogma, then the current prohibitionist stance will have to be swept away as both unworkable and immoral, to be replaced with an evidence based unified system (specifically including tobacco and alcohol) aimed at minimisation of harms to society. Such a strategy leads inevitably to the legalisation and regulation of all drugs.”

What could we expect in the way of drug policy from a Mitt Romney administration? This video posted by Scott Horton on his Blog is full of clues. The clip shows among other things that he is clearly against medical marijuana; however, it does not reveal the most important piece of information, why. Now, being against Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon is not a reasonable position, unless, his adherence to that religion affects public policy in an adverse way. Also, if Romney is opposed to medical marijuana because of his Mormonism then what are the implications for his stand on other vital issues? Therefore, it is important for the integrity of this election that before anyone votes Romney be made to answer the question; why are you against medical marijuana?

Audrey Hudson of The Washington Times is reporting that regular “Americans are tracking down U.S. Web sites used by al Qaeda and jihadi sympathizers and then using the Internet to persuade the service providers to snuff out the sites.”

The prestigious and influential journal Foreign Policy has the words “Legalize It” emblazoned across the cover of its September/October 2007 issue. The occasion is a superb article pointing out the dismal failure of the war on people who use certain kinds of drugs. The piece is by Ethan Nadelmann, Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA). It has been recommended by John McLaughlin on his program and even FOX News felt the argument worthy of respectful discussion. Nadelmann concludes his essay by asserting that, “The global war on drugs persists in part because so many people fail to distinguish between the harms of drug abuse and the harms of prohibition. Legalization forces that distinction to the forefront. The opium problem in Afghanistan is primarily a prohibition problem, not a drug problem. The same is true of the narcoviolence and corruption that has afflicted Latin America and the Caribbean for almost three decades-and that now threatens Africa. Governments can arrest and kill drug lord after drug lord, but the ultimate solution is a structural one, not a prosecutorial one. Few people doubt any longer that the war on drugs is lost, but courage and vision are needed to transcend the ignorance, fear, and vested interests that sustain it.”

These are chilling reports that we have seen before but which most leaders in America seem to want to ignore. I wonder what Jimmy Carter says in reaction to such reports? Perhaps: this is caused by Israeli repression and by American blind support of Israel?

Yonah Alexander, a professor and director of the International Center for Terrorism Studies at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies in Arlington Virginia, has substantial praise for Germany in its new role as America’s key ally in the war against international terrorism. He asserts that mention, “should be made of Germany's leadership in implementing EU counterterrorism strategy in regard to preventing radicalization and the recruitment of terrorists, protecting ordinary citizens and infrastructure, pursuing and investigating suspects, and improving the response to consequences of attacks.” Alexander then goes on to give examples of how this activity has certainly saved lives.

On Wednesday, September 26, I spoke at a luncheon seminar at the Center for International Policy in downtown Washington. The Center is located in a very nice area on Massachusetts Avenue near DuPont Circle, about ten minutes from the White House. I had been invited by the CIP director, William Goodfellow, a good friend. He wanted me to discuss my latest book, Fatal Distraction: The War on Drugs in the Age of Islamic Terror. It was quite informal and very pleasant. My thanks to Bill and to Abigail Poe, a CPI staff member who made most of the arrangements. The discussion centered on the failures of the present system of drug control and also on the practical details that would be involved in creating a new legal system to control presently illegal drugs.

We also discussed aspects of the evidence that prohibition does not work. In advance of the seminar I called another old friend who has a junky past and who also keeps in touch with the current drug scene in part as a counselor to current junkies. I asked him if it would take an hour or two for someone to make a contact and buy some heroin on the street in the DuPont Circle area. He replied that as far as he knew it would be difficult to make street buys in that area but that you could call a number and, if you were trusted, you could get the heroin delivered in twenty minutes. I responded with doubt and he replied that yes, it would probably take only that long, and "I'll give you the number." Because the traffic is so bad there, I still have my doubts that you could get anything, even a tuna fish sandwich or a pizza, delivered that fast, but my friend insists that he knows what is happening and that deliveries are quite prompt.

Whether it is two hours or twenty minutes, there seems no doubt that prohibition does not work even in the midst of an army of police officers in the midst of the capital city of the most powerful nation on earth, and in a sense in the belly of the prohibition beast.

What follows is a perceptive editorial written by David Borden, who was present during the luncheon discussion

by David Borden Executive Director of the Drug Reform Coordination Network (DRCNet) from the September 28th issue of the The Drug War Chronicle:

The annual FBI Uniform Crime Report came out last week, and the news it brought about drug arrests in 2006 was no surprise. Unsurprisingly, drug arrests again hit a record level -- 1,889,810 this time, 829,625 for marijuana, more than eight out of ten drug arrests for just possession. Almost nine out of ten marijuana arrests were for possession alone.

This all transpired in a year when violent crime was on the increase, 1.9% over 2005 and the second year in a row after a decade's decline. One should not exaggerate a relatively small number like 1.9%. But at a minimum an opportunity may have been lost to reduce violent crime. Why do we continue to plough such vast resources into drug enforcement that could otherwise be used to protect us from attacks -- attacks of whatever kind?

Despite a small up tick in the street price of cocaine recently -- due only to short-term operational challenges facing the industry -- all of this drug enforcement has been a massive failure. On Wednesday I attended a lunch talk at a DC-based foreign policy think tank given by Arnold Trebach, founder of our modern drug policy reform movement (he started the Drug Policy Foundation) and a professor emeritus of American University. In order to make the point about the futility of drug war, Arnold called a friend of his who is knowledgeable about the heroin scene prior to coming downtown for the talk. He wanted to know where one would go now in order to acquire heroin. After all, it's been awhile since he researched his 1982 work, The Heroin Solution.

Things have indeed changed since then, but despite perhaps millions of drug arrests over the years (10 million? 15? 20?), heroin has not become less available. In fact, it's easier to obtain it than ever before, at least if one knows the right people. According to Arnold, his friend told him that now you wouldn't go out to buy it, you'd just call the delivery service, and if you have any references to vouch for you, they would get it to you in about 20 minutes.

20 minutes. We could have finished our lunches, listened to half of Arnold's talk, then ordered some heroin, received it before the end of the talk and consumed it with dessert. (Of course for a variety of reasons, not limited to our need to get work done the rest of the day, we didn't do that and instead just took Arnold's friend's word that we could have.)

The diversion of resources away from more important -- and more feasible -- tasks is only one of many reasons to go with legalization. The money being spent on the illicit drug trade -- estimates globally are in the hundreds of billions of dollars -- is fueling violence, both global and local. I don't know whether the increase in drug arrests in the US played a role in the increase in violence last year, but it's clearly possible. Far more importantly, a chunk of the violence that we have suffered with throughout the years is directly or indirectly related to the drug trade.

And the money is warping society. How many young people have been lured into lives of criminality through the promise that the drug trade appears to offer? Most of them don't end up making great money doing so. But it's there, there's a prospect for advancement, and depending on your outlook it's glamorous and it lets you be part of something larger than yourself. Money from the drug trade is also helping to support those who want to carry out terrorist attacks, and in some places is fueling civil wars. All of this is happening because drugs are illegal, not because of any intrinsic properties of the drugs.

But would the sky fall if drugs were legal? Would so many more people use and get addicted to drugs that the harm would be greater from that than from the criminality created now by prohibition? Arnold told the audience that he believes we can devise a system for controlling a licit drug trade; that it would not be unduly difficult to do so (we do this already for the currently legal drugs, after all), and "we would survive." We could still help people with drug problems, we can regulate the drugs any number of different ways, we can face that challenge.

I in fact think the overall public health harm from drugs would decrease, not increase, even if more people experimented with them. After all, most people don't destroy themselves with drugs today, legal or illegal, despite their widespread availability, simply because they don't want to destroy themselves. For those who do get addicted to drugs like heroin, but who don't earn a fairly generous personal income, the artificially high prices that prohibition brings about for the drugs is a big part of making the habit so disruptive to their lives. I believe that on the public health side as well as on the criminal justice side, legalization will overall be a winning move, despite the harms that some drugs can have.

It can be hard to advance this discussion in circles of power. Arnold commented that at least eight people in US officialdom told him they would be glad to meet with him, they appreciated what he was doing, but they preferred not to meet him in their offices. They wanted to meet at one restaurant or another, where they hopefully would not been seen with him and thereby get in political hot water. That was a long time ago, but it is still the situation in many ways today.

And yet we do advance -- this organization and newsletter are here, for example, and the movement is growing in diversity and experience and size. Now it's time for the leaders to get real -- drug legalization is viable and it's the right thing to do. So stop demonizing it and start talking about it. Because sometimes leadership means actually leading.

(Signed copies of Arnold's two re-released books -- "The Heroin Solution" and "The Great Drug War" -- as well as his new work, "Fatal Distraction: The War on Drugs in the Age of Islamic Terror," can be obtained as membership premiums by donating to DRCNet.)

Alan Dershowitz explains the reality behind the myth.

Joshua Sinai, a program manager for counterterrorism studies at the Analysis Corporation, has favorably reviewed a new book, Bad Faith: The Danger of Religious Extremism, by Neil J. Kressel, a professor of psychology at William Paterson University. Sinai believes the volume can be of great value to the counterterrorism community because Kressel makes the important point that "only Muslims can delegitimize and root out Muslim extremists in a lasting way. The struggle must come from within and, despite the West's vast resources, good intentions, and occasionally important support, this must, ultimately, be a battle waged by Muslims for the heart of their culture."

These unique photos (click on audio slide show) of the so called human beings who sent other innocent human beings to horrible deaths should make us all think of the true nature of the human race, at least of some parts of it.

Columbia University’s decision to invite Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak there created a firestorm of criticism. What the naysayers forgot was that Ahmadinejad would not have that platform to himself. In his introductory remarks Columbia President Lee C. Bollinger argued that it, “should never be thought that merely to listen to ideas we deplore in any way implies our endorsement of those ideas, or the weakness of our resolve to resist those ideas or our naiveté about the very real dangers inherent in such ideas. It is a critical premise of freedom of speech that we do not honor the dishonorable when we open the public forum to their voices. To hold otherwise would make vigorous debate impossible.” He then proceeded to oppose the Iranian leader’s agenda by asserting that “you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator” and also asking some very pointed questions about Holocaust denial, Israel’s right exist, sponsorship of terrorism, nuclear weapons, and the suppression of dissent in Iran. Bollinger’s words are powerful testimony to the wisdom of confronting tyrants such as Ahmadinejad in a free and open forum.

The Jerusalem Post has run an informative interview with Steve Emerson. He is the executive director of The Investigative Project on Terrorism and the author of American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us as well as other books on the subject. Emerson tells the interviewer about his upcoming book, The Grand Deception, saying that it “is about how the US government, the media and the intelligentsia are witting and unwitting enablers of radical Islam, by accepting front groups for the Muslim Brotherhood or for Hamas as credible and legitimate. This is particularly egregious at the highest levels of the government - such as the State Department, Department of Homeland Security, Justice Department and the FBI - who meet and greet groups they should be investigating, not embracing. This sends a terrible signal to genuine Muslim moderates and the Muslim rank-and-file, reinforcing their sense that it is the radical groups who are respected by the government.”

Lately, a fairly common occurrence is the discovery that marijuana may be effective in the treatment of yet another illness. Recently, scientists at National Centre for Scientific Research in Valbonne, France found that an element in marijuana could prevent the development of prion diseases, The most famous of this class of malady is bovine spongiforme enzephalopathy commonly known as mad cow disease, which when transmitted to humans is called Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. The BBC tells us that, “French researchers reported that the non- psychoactive cannabis constituent CBD inhibited the accumulation of prion proteins in both mouse and sheep prion- infected cells, whereas other cannabinoids were either weak or not effective. Moreover, after infection with mouse scrapie, a prion disease, CBD limited accumulation of the prion protein in the brain and significantly increased the survival time of infected mice. CBD inhibited the nerve damaging effects of prions in a concentration-dependent manner.”

On September 30, 2000 the television station France 2 broadcast the apparent death of a Palestinian boy, Muhammad al-Dura, attributing the killing to the Israeli Defense Force. The occurrence sparked significant retaliatory violence and provided yet another excuse for hatred of the Jews. However, there is considerable evidence that the incident was in fact a hoax. In her column, occasioned by an appeal of the libel conviction of Philippe Karsenty, founder of the French online media watchdog Media Ratings, for questioning the integrity of France 2, Melanie Phillips presents a strong case that the supposed death was mere hate propaganda. She asserts that this, “scandal has many layers of evil. It reveals the wickedness of the Palestinians who so cynically stage hoaxes like this, as a result of which murderous hatred and mass hysteria are exponentially spread and innocent people are attacked and butchered in a rising spiral of terrorist atrocities. It reveals the wickedness of western journalists who transmit footage they know is a fraud as a matter of routine, becoming as a result active collaborators in the deaths of innocents.”

In his essay on the conflict between the Drug Enforcement Agency’s raids on medical marijuana providers and the principle of federalism, Radley Balko, a senior editor for Reason magazine, relates the good news that Barak Obama has promised to stop the incursions if elected. In doing so Obama joins all of the other Democratic presidential candidates in recognizing the senseless cruelty of these actions. On the other hand, only Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul among the Republican contenders for the oval office are offering such enlightened leadership on this issue. Balko concludes that this “is unfortunate for a party that once fancied itself the torch-bearer for federalism - the idea that most laws should be made on as local a level as possible, both to encourage state ‘laboratories of democracy’ to experiment with different policies and to allow people to utilize the freedom of movement to choose to live in those jurisdictions with laws that best reflect their own values.”

When all is said and done the most important organization contributing to the quest of ending Islamic terrorism just may be LibforAll, co founded by former president of Indonesia H.E. Kyai Haji Abdurrahman Wahid, who is more widely known as Gus Dur. He is also the leader of Nahdlatul Ulama an organization with more than 30 million Muslim members and some describe him as the world’s foremost Islamic religious figure.

In her column Mona Charen tells us that “Gus Dur denies that normative Islam is the faith of the torturers and suicide bombers, of the Taliban and al Qaeda, and of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad” and that “he and LibforAll co-founder C. Holland Taylor, an American former telecom entrepreneur who speaks fluent Indonesian and is very familiar with Islam, have launched what they hope will be a worldwide effort to counter radical Islam by enlisting moderate Muslims.”

Among LibforAll’s educational projects is an effort to translate the song "Warriors of Love" into Arabic, Urdu and other languages and distribute it throughout the Muslim world. The tune is by Indonesia’s enormously popular singing star Ahmad Dhani and includes the following lyrics: "If hatred has already poisoned you/Against those . . . who worship differently/ Then evil has already gripped your soul/ Then evil's got you in its damning embrace."

On a visit recently to a museum at one of the leading universities in this country and the world, I encountered a wonderful exhibit on slavery and the curbing of that evil practice in the United States. Inscribed in one of the most impressive documents of the exhibit was the statement that in the United States the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, issued by President Lincoln, ended the practice once and for all throughout the US. This is of course not true as can be seen in reading the full text of the proclamation, which was a mix of noble and practical motives. It also showed the immense constitutional power of the presidency in times of war, a fact to be considered today in other contexts besides slavery.

Question: then what did indeed end slavery once and for all in the US?

It is sad and shameful and also scary to see how well-respected British publications now read like they were written by Nazi stooges in the 1930s. The New Statesman was one of my favorite juournals. I am personally offended and yes saddened.

The organization Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME) is distributing a very harsh critique of the first installment of the CNN program God's Warriors hosted by Christiane Amanpour. The initial part of the series deals with Judaism and the review published by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America calls it “one of the most grossly distorted programs to appear on mainstream American television in many years.” One of their strongest complaints is that CNN fails to make clear that, “there is, of course, no counterpart among Jews and Christians to the violent jihadist Muslim campaigns underway across the globe, either in numbers of perpetrators engaged or in the magnitude of death and destruction wrought.”

This will be presented in the form of the project called Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, which will be held on more than 100 college campuses in the US during the week of October 22-26. Among the speakers will be Nonie Darwish and Wafa Sultan, as well as other well-known people who are seeking to either reform Islam or to point out the dangers from the way it is often practiced in America and in other Western countries. Many times when such people speak on American campuses they are shouted down by Muslim extremists and their nutcase supporters on the domestic Left and Right, mainly the former. These reformers are the central subject of my next book, now titled SPARKS OF HOPE.

If they and their supporters are allowed to speak without the usual attacks, then there is some hope for this country. If the usual spineless college leaders let the usual hoodlums take over, then I fear for our future as a free and open society. Certainly, our universities will then be teetering on the edge of an Islamist abyss.

Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week is sponsored and led by the David Horowitz Freedom Center, which at times is a bit too doctrinaire in its right-wing views and pronouncements. Even though dire circumstances have moved me to the right, I often disagree with those rigid utterances. Nevertheless, in this case I agree wholeheartedly with the plans for this important project. Read this article and see if you agree.

Economist Walter Williams has written a column in which he discusses the high murder rate within the black community. He offers the statistics that although Blacks make up only 13% of the population they account for 52 % of America’s homicides and they constitute 46% of the homicide victims. Williams then waxes nostalgic when he writes that, “During the 1940s and '50s, I grew up in North Philadelphia where many of today's murders occur. It was a time when blacks were much poorer, there was far more racial discrimination, and fewer employment opportunities and other opportunities for upward socioeconomic mobility were available. There was nowhere near the level of crime and wanton destruction that exists today. Behavior accepted today wasn't accepted then by either black adults or policemen.”

In the next paragraph Williams does indirectly acknowledge that the difference between then and now is a far larger and much more lucrative mayhem inducing inner city drug trade. However, he does not take this train of thought to its logical conclusion; that the most effective step that could possibly be taken to lower the murder rate among black people would be to legalize drugs thereby ending the violence generated by this black market.

Instead, Williams suggests a possible solution from the example of the Mayfair neighborhood in Washington D.C. where Black Muslims began to patrol causing a subsequent drop in gang activity and drug dealing. There is no doubt that violence in this area of the city did decline after the Black Muslim began their activity there. There is also little doubt that drug sales increased in other District neighborhoods at about the same and that the overall level of violence in that city was probably greater than it would have been without the relocation of the illegal trade and its inevitable often deadly struggle for control of new turf.

Now we are talking about something truly important. This story appeared on the front page of USAToday yesterday. All true, every word

Of course, they are wrong but we will give them their say here.

The question is: how long will we in the West allow the bigots of Arabia to impose their bigotry on us without a complaint or even a peep of protest?

My take on the border and the drug war in the Washington Times today.

Article published Aug 20, 2007
Fatal alliance

By Arnold Trebach - A recent article in The Washington Times by Sara A. Carter shows the frightening importance of the alliance between Arabic terrorists and Mexican drug cartels. It documents how well known this dangerous situation has been for several years, for which no effective action had been taken by the Department of Homeland Security or local officials.

As an old drug-policy hand, I thought I had heard everything about it. But parts of the story were news to me and terribly disturbing. One example was the report that "approximately 20 Arab persons a week were utilizing the Travis County Court in Austin to change their names and driver's licenses from Arabic to Hispanic surnames." I do not claim that this horrendous problem is easy to deal with; it is not.

However, I do claim that some obvious first steps come to mind. In the short and medium term, there must be greater legal controls on name changes and also more border agents and border fences. To the expected objections by the Mexican government and by our own group of the usual fuzzy-minded critics, my reply would be, cleaned up a bit: "Terribly sorry you feel that way."

In the longer run, our government must start taking even more courageous actions that account for the dynamics underlying this lethal alliance. That alliance is based on the fact that American drug laws and strategies have managed the majestic alchemy of converting relatively worthless plants into substances often worth more, ounce for ounce, than gold and diamonds. If we assume that the Arabs are jihadists planning to harm this country, then it follows that they have no interest in the drugs but rather in the great treasure to be made and the access to our cities and nuclear plants to be gained by associating with the Mexican gangs.

But is there a way to make the plants cheap again? There is of course an obvious but politically unpopular answer: It is to treat the plants and the derivative powders as legal articles of commerce. If, say, marijuana and cocaine were worth roughly as much as alcohol and tobacco, there would be no Mexican gangs involved with these legal substances and thus no such gangs to form an alliance with the jihadists who want to destroy America and its people, except for those who accept Islam.

To those who say that we will all be destroyed by drugs if we make drugs legal articles of commerce, I have several responses. For starters, I won't be destroyed by them because the very thought of using them bores me. Moreover, based upon research, I estimate that perhaps 95 percent of Americans feel the same way. We are not a nation of suicidal fools. Millions of American recently drastically reduced their consumption of readily available red meat, alcohol and tobacco for reasons of personal health.

In my latest book, "Fatal Distraction," I went over all the evidence that proved the war on drugs was indeed a fatal distraction. By that I meant that the drug war has never worked and now diverts limited resources from combating more deadly menaces - bombs, not bongs. Today, in the Drug Enforcement Administration alone, a total of 10,891 federal officials are employed to save us all from drugs - usually marijuana - at an annual cost of $2.5 billion.

It is high time in this perilous era that we say to these dedicated officials in the DEA and in hundreds of other police agencies that we as free citizens accept the personal responsibility to save ourselves and our families from drugs (and red meat, alcohol and tobacco). You focus attention on dealing with the new threats emanating from the jihadists who want to destroy us.

Of course, Congress and the president must soon demonstrate the political courage to repeal the drug laws, dismantle the expensive drug-control bureaucracy and create a new legal system to control the formerly illegal drugs. That's no small task, but stopping another September 11 demands guts and imagination.

Arnold Trebach is a professor emeritus at American University.

This is awful on many counts. The horror of the murder. The horror of the response by many Muslim citizens. The implication that Muslim immigration may have to be reduced.

I have seen many of these articles that list tiny Israel's accomplishments . Here is another from a surprising source in the UK. Is it all true? What else should be listed here?

Jamie Glazov of FrontPageMagazine.com has an interview with Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld, the Chairman of the Board of Fellows for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. They discuss Gerstenfeld’s “new project which exposes how much of the world's media present Israel and the Middle East conflict in a negative light.”

Rabbi Aryeh Spero a radio talk show host, a pulpit rabbi, and president of the Caucus For America has an article in which he discusses the double standard now being applied to treatment of the Koran. He tells us of an instance involving a Pace University student charged with a felony hate crime for putting a Koran in a toilet.

Spero argues that, “This case is important not only because an American is going to be criminally charged for an act that, while not nice, is simply not criminal but because, in the name of political correctness, we are changing centuries of legal definitions in order to appease bullies who are now telling us what we can do and what we can't. Worse, they are making us submit to a double standard where what is allowable for them is not allowable for us. For example, people can burn the Christian Bible but not soak a Koran. While American museums can display depictions of Mary in dung and Jesus in urine, one is prohibited from demonstrating disapproval and horror regarding verses in the Koran.”

Here is my take today in the Washigton Times on Obama's foolishness recently. I still think he and Hillary are good folks and predict they will be the Dems ticket with Hillary for prez and Barak for vice. This old recovering liberal does not plan to vote for them for the reasons stated below. As my friend Dale Geiringer has just reminded me, however, almost no one is worse that Rudy on drug policy. It may be an awful choice for me and other sensible drug policy reformers who will decide that survival is more important now than drug policy reform.

Article published Aug 13, 2007
Parsing Ford, Obama
August 13, 2007
By Arnold Trebach

It would seem that there is no end of them. Like bad dreams, they keep reappearing. That is, truly dumb remarks by presidential candidates on truly important subjects.

Let us recall this statement by President Ford in the second televised presidential debate with Jimmy Carter in October of 1976: "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and there never will be under a Ford administration." Max Frankel, Associate Editor of The New York Times, asked a follow-up question that would have given Mr. Ford a chance to say he really did not mean it. Instead, Mr. Ford blundered on, insisting that each of these occupied Eastern European countries was "independent" and had "its own territorial integrity."

In its Oct. 18, 1976 edition, Time magazine labeled this in a headline, "The Bloober Heard Round the World." That is how I and my other Democratic friends viewed those remarks and also the statements that candidate Ford made during those next few days in an attempt to extricate himself from this incredible set of falsehoods. Mr. Carter called the remarks "absolutely ridiculous," as did I.

They lent strength to my inclination to vote for Jimmy, who was of course elected, to my great joy and to that of millions of liberals like me at the time.Now fast forward to just several days ago and listen to presidential candidate and Sen. Barack Obama's statement in answer to a question from a reporter: "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance." After a brief pause he added, "involving civilians." Then there was another pause, and candidate Obama tried to retreat: "Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

These remarks violated a set of generally observed ideas and rules of procedure by the leaders of most civilized nations on this incredibly sensitive subject. To wit: We view with horror the very prospect of ever using nuclear weapons in another war, but we reserve the right to do so in the extreme circumstance when no other type of weapon can control a rogue state committed to a massive attack.

The main point here is that ambiguity rules and no rational leader ever takes the nuclear option totally off the table. Yet that is what Mr. Obama did, and then he immediately said that the whole issue was off the table. He later went on to declare that he was prepared to pull out of Iraq and then to invade Pakistan so as to get the terrorists who have done the American people so much harm and who continue to pose an extreme threat. All of this gave chills to much of the world and certainly should have also chilled any rational voter planning to vote for Barack Obama for president.

Now, take a deep breath and reflect on some other realities. They will cause some confusion but they are realities. Good people can slip and say some truly stupid things. Gerald Ford would have made a better president than Jimmy Carter, who turned out to be one of our weakest presidents and is without a doubt our worst ex-president. He is causing immense harm to America and to Israel.

Indeed, Mr. Carter appears to be a bigot willing to sell his soul and his voice to rich Arab interests. I sincerely regret my vote for him. Barack Obama is brilliant, decent and well-motivated. Months ago I predicted that the Democratic ticket would most likely be Clinton for president and Obama for vice president; I stick to that prediction today.

If elected, this would mean that two rational and good people would be in charge of this country - and of much of the world. Despite all of their recent divisive attacks on one another and the ugly sniping back and forth, they both seem like basically fine human beings. If we elect them, we will moreover make history in a positive way in terms of gender and race.

Nevertheless, many old Democrats and recovering liberals will not be able to vote for these good people because they are prisoners of the rampaging left and of the Democratic leadership that calls for retreat and appeasement.

While many of us are not happy with Mr. Bush's record and are sad about all the American and Iraqi casualties, rather than retreat we will support the candidate who promises to adhere to the difficult and politically risky Bush Doctrine of fighting terror and spreading democracy.

Do not be surprised therefore if many so-called liberal voters end up voting for the Republican ticket, which, in my opinion, will probably be headed by Rudy Giuliani.

Arnold Trebach is a professor emeritus at American University.

In a column appearing in the Orange County Register, Mark Steyn begins with the question, “how will we lose the war against ‘radical Islam’?” He then goes on to argue that suppression of information may be a significant part of the problem The case in question concerns a book by J. Millard Burr, a former USAID relief coordinator, and the scholar Robert O Collins, Alms for Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World that the public now has virtually no access to.

Saudi Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz does not like the information contained in the manuscript and he has threatened to employ the notoriously plaintiff biased British libel laws against the publisher. Therefore, Steyn informs us, “Cambridge University Press agreed to recall all unsold copies of "Alms for Jihad" and pulp them. In addition, it has asked hundreds of libraries around the world to remove the volume from their shelves.”

Alan W. Dowd is a senior fellow at Sagamore Institute for Policy Research has written an interesting article comparing and contrasting the American experiences in Iraq and Vietnam suggesting that the two are not so much alike.

The website Daily Kos has been much in the news lately with pundit Bill O’Reilly calling the site’s main writers promoters of hate speech and criticizing Democratic presidential candidates for choosing to attend the YearlyKos convention. Robert Goldberg, vice president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, agrees with O’Reilly in one respect when he points out the enormous amount of anti-Semitic rhetoric that appears on that forum.

Goldberg quotes from the last post of Eyal Rosenberg a diarist for the DailyKos who resigned on May 9 with the words that “reading these past months on dkos has led me to believe that people here, under the 'progressive' banner, support views that end up in one place: me dead.” He also informs us during Rosenberg’s time writing there 5000 posts, about 23 per day, appeared that referenced Jews or Israel the great majority of them in a very negative way.

Goldberg ends his piece reminding us and the Democratic presidential candidates that “Martin Luther King Jr. said ‘there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular - but one must take it simply because it is right.’ Translation: If you can't tell the YearlyKos there's no place for anti-Semitism you lack moral courage.”

This is sort of a silly story but it is becoming increasingly rare: a British Airline captain actually ordered three Mulsim pincesses off his plane because they demanded that male passengers be removed from their presence because they were unrelated and strangers. Too often we in the West, especially in the UK, try to show how reasonable we are by giving in to every petty demand based on their religion, not on our values. Not in this case. For a change

Some people object to the term Islamic-fascism saying it is unfair to link the religion of Islam with the political ideology of fascism. However, if we look at the plight of Iranian union organizer Mansour Osanloo we can realize that there is often a strong connection between the two. Reporter Colin Freeman of the Sunday Telegraph quotes the now jailed Osanloo as saying "We decided it is better to die than to live like this." Freeman then goes on to assert that this type of statement “has invited the ire of Iran's mullahs, for whom any independent organisation with a large membership poses a potential threat similar to Solidarity, the Polish shipyard workers' union led by Mr. Walesa, which opened the first major cracks in communism in the early Eighties.”

Is this piece by Burt Prelutsky on Jimmy Carter and Muslims and other so-called catastrophies over the top? I must confess that he is expressing thoughts I never believed I would support, but do now.

The greatest threats to the safety of our people, including our kids, has always been the automobile. Now a new element has been recognized. Thanks to Stephen Wallace for bringing this article to my attention.

In a column posted on Jihad Watch its director Robert Spencer describes an ongoing legal battle, taking place in both Great Britain and the United States, between billionaire Saudi financier Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz and Rachel Ehrenfeld, founder and director of the American Center for Democracy over her book Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It.

The Saudi sued Ehrenfeld for libel in the British courts and won even though she lives and the book was published in America. There is a counter suit pending in the United States in which Ehrenfeld maintains her 1st Amendment rights have been violated. Spencer expresses the sincere hope that Miss Ehrenfeld prevails in this struggle because “if Saudis or others who have indeed supported the global jihad are able cover their tracks using British libel laws to silence investigators, the only winners are the jihadists.”

The House Oversight and Government and Reform Committee chaired by Henry Waxman has discovered documents which reveal an orchestrated partisan effort by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) to aid vulnerable Republican candidates in the last election. Drug Czar John Walters and his deputies appeared at 20 events in the months prior to the 2006 contest.

The evidence includes an e-mail, written by Douglas Simon, the drug policy office's White House liaison, which described a meeting where Karl Rove praised the campaign endeavor. Simon asserted that, “The Director and the Deputies deserve the most recognition because they actually had to give up time with their families for the god awful places we sent them.” Meanwhile The Washington Post reports that “The drug control office has had a history of being nonpartisan, and a 1994 law bars the agency's officials from engaging in political activities even on their own time.”

Tom Batiuk creator of the comic strip Funky Winkerbean has won public service awards in the past, however, at the moment he is doing his readers and the general population, especially those who have or will face cancer, a grave disservice. One of his long running themes is the story of Lisa a woman who has been coping with breast cancer. The storyline has reached a point where Lisa believes she must decide between the pro-longed life that chemo-therapy can give her and a better quality of life that she might have in the absence of treatment. Lisa has now chosen to die early. In bringing the tale to this crossroads Batiuk has presented his character with a false choice.

There has been no mention, as of yet, concerning the possibility of Lisa using marijuana to counteract the side effects of her chemo-therapy. While this strategy is still controversial that is because of political not scientific or medical reasons. Even the National Cancer Institute acknowledges the potential effectiveness of marijuana in alleviating the debilitating side effects of Lisa’s chemo-therapy saying that, “Marijuana cigarettes have been used to treat chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and research has shown that THC is more quickly absorbed from marijuana smoke than from an oral preparation.”

If Tom Batiuk is going to accept praise and awards for tackling this subject then it is incumbent upon him to do so in a responsible manner. So far he has not done so, instead, he has put his cartoon strip in the service of the simplistic and questionable, moral and political statement that marijuana is bad. Just like the federal government in the real world, Batiuk has put politics above the life of his character, Lisa.

By Keith Halderman

Nadine Hoffman, director of the Leadership Council for Human Rights, has a column in which she discusses the plight of many Kurdish women in Iraq. Among other things she describes an honor killing in the city of Erbil where “the perpetrator reportedly kills his daughter while she kisses his feet and begs in vain for her life.”

Those words are full of despair. The British leadership are all for surrender now, or so it seems. And now what of the Americans?

Chairman of Plexus Scientific Corporation, Mike Walker, who was acting secretary of the Army and deputy director of FEMA in the Clinton Administration, implores us not to take the wrong lessons from the recent failed terrorist attacks in Great Britain. He asserts that, “We should take no comfort in incompetent terrorists. Not all of them will be incompetent. What we should be concerned about is a growing number of disaffected people, influenced by the al Qaeda ideology, who are beginning to adopt martyrdom as an accepted tactic of expression. For them, a democratic society's outlets for dissent are not enough. In fact, they discount the validity of democratic government entirely, believing that only God, not man, should rule on earth.”

Republican Senator from Minnesota Norm Coleman and National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) board member Norm Kent attended Hofstra University at the same time in the late 1960s. They became friends there and also used marijuana together. Recently Kent received a form letter from his old smoking buddy stating that "I oppose the legalization of marijuana because, as noted by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, marijuana can have serious adverse health affects on individuals. The health problems that may occur from this highly addictive drug include short-term memory loss, anxiety, respiratory illness and a risk of lung cancer that far exceeds that of tobacco products. It would also make our transportation, schools and workplaces, just as examples, more dangerous."

This event prompted Kent to write an open letter to Coleman reminding him of his past position on marijuana which had included a forceful call for legalization. Kent pointed out that, “You never said then that pot was dangerous. What was scary then, and is as frightening now, is when national leaders become voices of hypocrisy, harbingers of the status quo, and protect their own position instead of the public good. Welcome to the crowd of those who have become a likeness of which they despised. “

Faithful readers of this space may well understand Norm Kent’s anger at Coleman since there is no scientific evidence that when used sensibly and in moderation marijuana causes adverse health effects. In fact, the Drug Enforcement Agency’s own Administrative Law Judge, Francis L Young found that “Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.”

Nor is marijuana a highly addictive drug. None of the great objective commission reports from the 1894 British Indian Hemp Drugs Commission report to the recent study by the Canadian Senate and all those in between have ever found marijuana to be addictive.

Also, there is no causal relationship between marijuana and respiratory illness, including lung cancer. Indeed, Dr. Donald Tashkin of the UCLA School of Medicine, a staunch opponent of cannabis use, presented a large case-control study which showed an inverse correlation between marijuana smoking and lung cancer. And, attempts to link marijuana use with mental illness such as increased anxiety are false too.

In addition, there is little creditable evidence, despite widespread belief to the contrary, that marijuana use makes people more dangerous drivers. However, there is evidence that the opposite may be true. Certainly, we must take into consideration that marijuana prohibition encourages the consumption of more alcohol and that without doubt makes transportation, schools, and workplaces more dangerous.

Norm Kent ends his eloquent open letter with some good advice, for Norm Coleman and many others in the political class as well, saying, “How about you looking back at your past and saying: ‘What I did was not so wrong and not so bad and not so hurtful that generations of Americans should still, decades later, be going to jail for smoking pot -- nearly one million arrests for possession last year.’ Can't Norm Coleman come out of the closet in 2007 and say ‘These arrests are wrong -- that there is a better way, and we need to find it.’ You might find more integrity and honor in that then adopting the sad and sorry policy of our Office of National Drug Control Policy. You might find the person you were.”

By Keith Halderman

In a column Frank Gaffney Jr. questions President Bush’s decision to visit the Saudi-underwritten Washington Islamic Center last week and his plans to appoint a special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). Gaffney believes that, “if we are to prevent further terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans and their government must stop blurring the distinction between Muslims who are determined to bring about - one way or another - our demise as freedom-enjoying people, and Muslims who are fully committed to preserving the liberties secured for us 231 years ago.”

How horrible that the UK is intent on suicide and how wonderful that Ms.Phillips has the true grit to keep exposing it.

When I say one of the best, I mean that in every sense of those words. Barry, who just died at the young age of 60, was a superb scholar, teacher, social activist, and human being. He was wise, compassionate, and kind to everyone with whom he came in contact. I cannot remember in all of the years I knew him -- almost half of his life -- any action on his part that was not gentle and caring and very, very wise.

My condolences to his wife, Susie, and his children, daughter Lindsay and son Loren. Thanks to Ethan Nadelmann and Kevin Zeese for telling me about this sad but important news.

Here are my reflections, somewhat meandering but that is how I am feeling this morning -- that and traumatized and a bit pissed at the sometimes cruel vagaries of fate.

It has been easy to follow Lindsay's progress because she has become one of the new breed of internet experts or bloggers, affiliated with, I believe, Google. Why do I remember those years ago, when a much younger Lindsay intrigued a visiting scholar from France because the French she learned in school and in which she was fluent -- was, well, classical and a modern French person rarely heard it anymore? Barry and Susie chortled as they told me that story. I am sure I do not have it exactly correct and hope I will be straightened out soon.

I first met him and his wife, Susie, when they attended one of my comparative drug policy seminars in London at