DC Conservatives Back Hillary Clinton Book

Numerous media reports claim that both conservatives and liberals are shying away from the controversial new biography "The Truth About Hillary" by Edward Klein.

But if Klein's reception in Washington is any barometer, conservatives are embracing both the book and the one-time liberal editor who has defected with a tell-all about the former first lady.

Last Wednesday Klein was the VIP guest speaker at the two most important weekly conservative strategy sessions: one hosted by Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform, and the other by Paul Weyrich, long-time head of the Free Congress Foundation.

Both groups draw top conservative leaders, Capitol Hill staffers and conservative media types.

At both meetings overflow audiences greeted Klein with thunderous applause.

"Klein gave a great presentation," Norquist said. "He was extremely well-received."

But what about claims that Klein delved too deeply into Hillary's personal life and even claimed Bill had "raped" his wife?

Although those allegations don't appear in Klein's book, claims of such have been widely circulated to discredit the book.

"Frankly, some of the phony criticisms of [the book] that have been put forward - certain assertions that he couldn't back up - Klein really exploded those," Norquist said.

"I think that was a big help because even conservatives read the New York Times and assume that there must be some of that that is true."

Norquist said Klein's presentation demonstrated that much of the criticism of Klein's book has been "disingenuous and dishonest."

Morton Blackwell, the respected head of the Leadership Institute, chaired the Weyrich Free Congress Foundation meeting and was also pleased by Klein and his book.

Blackwell said Klein was "well-received" by the conservatives who gathered there.

"I suspect a lot of them will go out and buy his book now," Blackwell added.

Klein's Warning

During both of his Washington speeches, author Klein warned that if the New York senator and former first lady ever becomes president, she will advocate same-sex marriage, an idea that has been rejected by voters in 11 states in the 2004 election alone.

He also accused Maura Moynihan, a daughter of the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, of having "lied through her teeth" in denying her father and mother distrusted Hillary.

Klein interviewed Moynihan's wife Liz at length for his book. A controversial anecdote that showed Sen. Moynihan held Hillary Clinton in contempt was denied by Maura. But Mrs. Moynihan has never publicly denied Klein's account.

Clearly, Mrs. Clinton has moved her public position to the "moderate" wing of her party.

But Klein told NewsMax.com he believes this is simply political posturing on her part.

"In her heart of hearts, she is still the same old Hillary," Klein said.

"Hillary has no principles beyond Hillary," Klein insists, adding that is the number-one message in his book, a point he reinforced in answer to a question from Blackwell.

"It's easy to label her a far-left, hard-left ideologue," the author told NewsMax. "In fact, Hillary Clinton is more of a chameleon than anything else. She doesn't have any real principles. She'll follow the polls on almost anything."

So what would she do in the White House?

"It's my view that if she became president she would be in favor of gay marriage because she has such huge and powerful support from the gay and lesbian community," Klein said.

One participant at Norquist's meeting had indicated he thought Klein "did not come out and call Hillary a lesbian, but you implied it."

The author said that was a "misreading" of what he had written. Klein said that Hillary Rodham Clinton's political outlook was formed in the counter-culture of the 1960s, and that part of the feminist movement with which she identified encouraged lesbianism.

"I have no idea what Hillary Clinton does in her bedroom. I have never been there for any reason, thank Heaven," Klein added.

Klein's book has remained on the top of the New York Times best-seller list for four weeks even though it has received almost no big-media exposure.

Now Klein says many of his liberal Manhattan friends (the only kind of friends you have if you're a New York journalist) have sought to make him a pariah.

Already he has been disinvited from parties and dinners, he said, and "some of them won't even talk to us." His wife, who is "gentle and hasn't been well," has been taking all this "very badly," he says. "We've really found out who our friends are."

Klein is also going through a political conversion of sorts.

Though his background - former foreign editor of Newsweek and former editor-in-chief of The New York Times Magazine - makes him appear like a member of the liberal media elite, he says he is a "conservative in the making."

The experience of writing about Hillary has contributed to the metamorphosis, he said.

He likened his situation to that of Bernard Goldberg, whose 28-year career as a correspondent for CBS News was set back after he blew the whistle on bias at that network.

He notes the hypocrisy of the "liberals" who dominate the media.

"It's amazing because these are the people who talk about freedom of speech and about shield laws to protect journalists' confidential sources, and who are members of the Committee for the Protection of Journalists -- all members of the wonderful liberal organizations that purport to advocate the free exchange of ideas," he said.

"But whenever there is a free exchange of ideas they don't like, they go bananas."

He noted that Hillary's "war room" had sent out propaganda accusing him of saying things in the book he never said, and then condemned him for supposedly saying them. The liberal machine had gone full bore on this one.

Some conservatives have joined in on the frenzy to attack Klein.

But other conservative leaders -- including the likes of Norquist, Blackwell and Weyrich -- say this important book on the Democrats' leading presidential candidate is not getting the media attention it deserves.

Al-Jazeera Slams NewsMax

When NewsMax revealed that the Arab TV network Al-Jazeera was "Coming to America" in the form of a new digital channel, we hardly expected to raise the ire of the network itself.

As a result of the letter below, we may change our references to Al-Jazeera from "pro-terrorist" and simply say it is the "preferred network of Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida terrorist organization."

Al-Jazeera's letter to NewsMax follows:

To the Editor,

I am writing to express my disgust regarding your Monday, July 18, article "Al-Jazeera Coming to America" in which you label the yet-to-be-launched Al-Jazeera International as "pro-terrorist."

That charge is ill-informed, slanderous and wrong.

Al Jazeera International will be the first English-language international television network broadcasting from the Middle East. We have no domestic agenda and no political bias.

Our coverage will be fearless, provocative, and the most informed on what's happening on the ground in the world's hot spots. We are a fresh alternative built for viewers who want their news fast, accurate, and unvarnished.

Based in Qatar, Al Jazeera International is staffed by an international team of top news professionals drawn from every corner of the globe, who will be supported by over 40 news bureaux and four major broadcast centres in Washington DC, London, Kuala Lumpur and Doha.

This capacity gives Al Jazeera International a 360 degree view of news stories, allowing us to avoid the bias and slant that unfortunately so many news organisations fall prey to.

Regards,

Nigel Parsons
Managing Director
Al Jazeera International

Al-Jazeera Coming to America

Date: July 18, 2005

The pro-terrorist Al-Jazeera International will debut early next year as a 24-hour English-language news network headquartered in the Middle East.

And efforts to bring the network to the U.S. have been "very interesting and extremely encouraging," according to Commercial Director Lindsey Oliver.

At launch the network will have a staff of "hundreds," said Oliver, a former director of CNBC Europe.

The advertising-supported network will operate out of four broadcast centers – Washington, London, Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia - and Doha, Qatar, its headquarters.

The international version of Al-Jazeera, which has been accused by Washington of having an anti-American, pro-terrorist bias, will launch on schedule "regardless of its subscriber count," according to the publication Broadcasting & Cable.

On the network’s schedule, the first half of each hour will be devoted to hard news, and the second will largely feature talk shows and documentaries.

The managing director of the network will be Nigel Parsons, a 30-year media veteran formerly with Associated Press Television News, and Yemen-born CNN veteran Riz Khan will host a live interview show.

The network is funded by the Emir of Qatar, who launched the Arab-language Al-Jazeera in 1996.

Nine women defy Vatican with ordination as priests

Nine women risked excommunication by the Vatican following their unauthorized ordination as female Roman Catholic priests and deacons.

The ceremony, which was not sanctioned by the Roman Catholic hierarchy, took place on a boat on the St. Lawrence River near Gananoque in eastern Canada following a conference on women as priests at Carleton University in Ottawa.

The mid-river location was chosen because organizers said it was in-between the United States and Canada, where no official Catholic diocese has jurisdiction.

Four of the women were ordained as priests, while five were ordained as deacons.

Even so, the participants risk the same fate as seven women who were expelled from the church after being "ordained" on the Danube River between Germany and Austria in 2003.

"I only have my faith and my hope," former nun Michele Birch-Conery told AFP earlier this month. The 65-year-old Canadian took the priestly vows in the ceremony.

"I believe it's time to take this step," she said.

Despite the rise of female priests in some Protestant denominations, the Catholic church has steadfastly refused to admit women into the priesthood. Pope Benedict XVI reiterated the ban after being elected in April to replace the late Pope John Paul II.

Fourteen women have undergone unsanctioned ordinations in similar river ceremonies in Europe in recent years and 65 others are planning to do the same.

The Vatican reacted by excommunicating the first seven after they refused to retract their vows.

But two of the women, Christine Mayr-Lumetzberger of Austria and Gisela Forster of Germany, were later secretly ordained as bishops by their male counterparts in the Roman Catholic church, said Birch-Conery.

Mayr-Lumetzberger and Forster helped perform the shipboard ordination rites Monday.

"This doesn't conform to the Catholic faith. Church teachings are clear: only men can be ordained," Father Serge Poitras of the Apostolic Nunciature in Ottawa told AFP.

"People can do what they want. We don't have an army. We won't chase after them," Poitras said.

"All we can do is deplore such challenges to church doctrine and set the record straight," he said.

Over 220 friends and family attended the ceremony and banquet aboard the boat, which usually ferries tourists around the picturesque Thousand Islands on the St. Lawrence River, just north of Lake Ontario.

The Catholic church asked local priests not to comment on the event.

And Then This Happens

Its not to often that something makes me want to post anything on the blogsite other than news clippings, but this was just to much. Watching the news yesterday and then going online, all everyone was talking abut was the Roberts pick. Not that its a bad thing, but kinda like overkill. Honestly, how many stories can you write about someone you don't really know. You can't. These stories weren't about Roberts, they were about the Left end of the Senate and how they don't want Roberts. How childish. They wouldn't confirm Gandhi if he was picked by Bush. They would still want to grill him into the ground and Chinese water torture him until they 're satisfied.

I now know that our country will never reach true bipartisanship. After bitter political battles and slanted media, all we have are filibusters and nuclear options. They couldn't even pretend to think of the country over the party for 5 minutes.

No. So Roberts will get the backing of the right, and the moderates, an everyone else that understands the importance of having a Justice. And everyone else will make life miserable. Nice considering that at the end of the day a Justice upholds the constitution and not their own opinion.

A Justice must be blind to politics, not forcefed it on their conformation hearing.

Bush names Roberts to Supreme Court

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

President Bush last night nominated staunch conservative John G. Roberts Jr. to the Supreme Court, saying the Harvard-educated lawyer and appeals court judge will "strictly apply the Constitution and laws -- not legislate from the bench."
"A nominee to that court must be a person of superb credentials and the highest integrity, a person who will faithfully apply the Constitution and keep our founding promise of equal justice under law," the president said in a nationally televised, prime-time announcement. "I have found such a person in Judge John Roberts."
In picking the 50-year-old former law clerk for Supreme Court Justice William H. Rehnquist, Mr. Bush rejected much speculation that he would nominate a centrist or a woman to replace the high court's first woman, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who announced her retirement July 1.
His choice prompted immediate opposition from such liberal groups as People for the American Way and NARAL Pro-Choice America, which criticized a 1990 legal briefing he wrote while serving in the first President Bush's administration that called for the Supreme Court's 1973 ruling legalizing abortion to be "overruled."
But the president said Judge Roberts is the best candidate to replace the swing vote of Justice O'Connor, who often broke 4-4 ties on issues such as abortion, affirmative action, states' rights and the death penalty.
"He has a good heart. He has the qualities Americans expect in a judge: experience, wisdom, fairness and civility. He has profound respect for the rule of law and for the liberties guaranteed to every citizen," the president said as he stood side by side with Judge Roberts in the White House East Room.
Judge Roberts, accompanied by his wife, Jane, and two children, said it was both "an honor and very humbling to be nominated to serve on the Supreme Court."
The judge served in President Reagan's Justice Department and was principal deputy solicitor general in President George Bush's administration. He also has argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court and said that experience "left me with a profound appreciation for the role of the court in our constitutional democracy and a deep regard for the court as an institution."
"I always got a lump in my throat whenever I walked up those marble steps to argue a case before the court, and I don't think it was just from the nerves," he said.
"I am very grateful for the confidence the president has shown in nominating me, and I look forward to the next step in the process before the United States Senate."
Reaction on Capitol Hill was swift, albeit muted. While advocacy groups immediately opposed the nomination, especially after members of the Bush administration sought opinions from more than 70 members of the U.S. Senate before the president announced his decision.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said, "I will not prejudge this nomination.
"The president has chosen someone with suitable legal credentials, but that is not the end of our inquiry," the Nevada Democrat said. "The Senate must review Judge Roberts' record to determine if he has a demonstrated commitment to the core American values of freedom, equality and fairness."
Added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat: "I look forward to the committee's findings so that I can make an informed decision about whether Judge Roberts is truly a guardian of the rule of law who puts fairness and justice before ideology."
Pro-choice groups were more biting.
"We are extremely disappointed that President Bush has chosen such a divisive nominee for the highest court in the nation, rather than a consensus nominee who would protect individual liberty and uphold Roe v. Wade," NARAL Pro-Choice America said.
In 1990, Judge Roberts co-wrote a legal brief that suggested the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 high court decision that made abortion a constitutional right.
"The court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion ... finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution," the brief said. "We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled."
But during his 2003 confirmation hearing, the judge said he would be guided by legal precedent.
"Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent," Judge Roberts told senators in May 2003.
In last night's announcement, Mr. Bush cited a 2001 letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee from more than 140 members of the D.C. Bar, including a former counsel to two Democratic presidents.
"Although as individuals we reflect a wide spectrum of political party affiliation and ideology, we are united in our belief that John Roberts will be an outstanding federal court [of] appeals judge and should be confirmed by the United States Senate," the president cited the letter as saying.
Democrats and liberal advocacy groups will likely bring up several rulings and briefs from the judge's past. In private practice, Judge Roberts wrote a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that Congress had failed to justify a Department of Transportation affirmative-action program.
During his tenure in the first Bush administration, Judge Roberts co-authored an amicus brief arguing that public high-school graduation programs could include religious ceremonies. The Supreme Court disagreed 5-4.
Also during his time in the first Bush administration, Judge Roberts helped argue before the court -- successfully this time -- that doctors and clinics receiving federal funds may not talk to patients about abortion.
Unlike some of the judges put forward by Mr. Bush, Judge Roberts was considered so noncontroversial when he was nominated to the federal court in May 2003 that the Senate skipped a recorded vote and approved him by unanimous consent.
Republicans last night praised the nomination.
"Judge Roberts is the kind of outstanding nominee that will make America proud. He embodies the qualities America expects in a justice on its highest court -- someone who is fair, intelligent, impartial and committed to faithfully interpreting the Constitution and the law," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said.
Praise also quickly poured in from conservative and pro-life groups.
The Family Research Council called Judge Roberts "exceptionally well-qualified," and Concerned Women for America said, "No reasonable person can claim that Judge Roberts is 'out of the mainstream.'"
Added the Rev. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life: "I am thrilled that the president has kept his promise by selecting a nominee who understands the importance of strictly adhering to the Constitution."
Judge Roberts was first nominated for a federal appeals court seat in 1992 by President George Bush and again by the current president in 2001. The nominations died in Democrat-led Senates both times. He was renominated in January 2003 and joined the court in June 2003.
The president's announcement last night was the subject of intense scrutiny throughout the day. At first, the name of Judge Edith Brown Clement emerged, with several news organizations -- including the Associated Press -- putting her forward as the choice. Later in the day, news agencies backed off Judge Clement and several other names emerged.
The White House held an "embargoed, off camera briefing" at 7:45 p.m. on the president's decision, and so Judge Roberts' was being reported as the nominee even before Mr. Bush stepped to the podium. The White House said Mr. Bush took with him 11 names of top candidates under consideration when he went to Denmark on July 5.
In the past few days, he interviewed five candidates, including Judge Roberts on Friday. Judge Roberts was treated to a presidential tour of the residence, including the Lincoln Bedroom, during his one-hour visit.
Mr. Bush made his decision last night, and during lunch with Australian Prime Minister John Howard yesterday, stepped out of the room to call his nominee.
When he returned, he said to the group, which included the leaders' wives: "I just offered the job to a great, smart 50-year-old lawyer who has agreed to serve on the bench."

Eminent Domain: Churches 'Targeted by the Bulldozers'

Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com

There is disagreement over whether the U.S. Supreme Court's recent eminent domain decision endangers the property rights of churches, synagogues and other religious institutions. Some argue that the First Amendment and existing laws may offer adequate protection, while others worry that the decision will open the door to a political assault on the property of people of faith.

The Supreme Court's Kelo v. New London ruling, could mean that "religious institutions that are, by nature, non-commercial and, by law, tax exempt, would be the first to be targeted by the bulldozers because of their alleged lack of economic contribution to the community," according to Jared Leland, media and legal counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

The Becket Fund filed a "friend of the court" brief in support of Susette Kelo and the other homeowners' property rights in the Kelo case. On June 23, the nation's high court expanded the definition of "public use" in eminent domain cases, ruling that the city of New London, Conn., could seize property owners' homes for private development that might generate jobs and increased tax revenue.

In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor described the slippery slope she believes the court's majority created with its decision.

"[T]he Court today significantly expands the meaning of public use," O'Connor wrote. "It holds that the sovereign may take private property currently put to ordinary private use, and give it over for new, ordi\-nary private use, so long as the new use is predicted to generate some secondary benefit for the public -- such as increased tax revenue, more jobs, maybe even aesthetic pleasure."

O'Connor voiced another concern, one that resonated with groups advocating on behalf of religious rights. She warned that in expanding the definition of "public use," the majority had come close to embracing "the absurd argument that ... any church that might be replaced with a retail store ... is inherently harmful to society, and thus within the government's power to condemn."

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, agreed with O'Connor's assessment.

"She's absolutely correct, especially since churches are, of course, tax exempt," Sekulow warned. "I think we've got a risk here that's significant."

Gary Palmer, president of the Alabama Policy Institute, told Cybercast News Service that the threat doesn't stop with the potential for taking away property a religious entity already owns.

"A church might want to purchase a property in a high-growth area and, because city planners and developers know that churches don't bring anything to the table in terms of tax revenues, I think that there's a tremendous potential for all kinds of barriers being set up to prevent a church from acquiring property," Palmer explained.

He also fears the ruling might be used to punish churches that are active in promoting political issues involving morality.

"For instance, here in Alabama," Palmer warned, "it was the churches that rallied, contributed money to the campaign but, really rallied behind defeating a lottery.

"And the churches have been the mainstay of opposition to expansion of gambling in Alabama," he continued, "so much so that one state legislator proposed that -- if churches continue to block these gambling measures that he says would bring substantial revenue to the state -- then, perhaps, they should look at taxing church property."

Leland said, however, that the Kelo decision is not as much of a "devastating blow" to religious groups' property rights as it could have been "because of the strength of the First Amendment and federal and state laws.

"An added or extra level of protection for religious institutions has been stripped away by the court," Leland said. "Nevertheless, there are some very sturdy shoulders to lean on in the First Amendment and federal law."

Palmer is not so optimistic.

"That's one court decision away from meaning nothing," he argued, adding that the same court that just expanded the definition of "public use" in the Fifth Amendment could limit the scope of the "free exercise" of religion in the First Amendment.

"Kelo is the logical progression of activist judges," Palmer continued. "Activism, by either side, undermines the rule of law and, when one side or the other starts making up new rights or denying existing rights, all the rights are undermined."

Sekulow noted that the federal law most often used to fight encroachment on a church's property rights -- the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) -- has not been contested in the Supreme Court ... yet.

"I think it's an open-ended question right now, and we don't know how the courts are going to deal with that," Sekulow said. "[Someone is] going to test the constitutionality of RULIPA.

"I think it's important to also get state law changes in place," he added.

Lawmakers in Texas appeared to be acting on Sekulow's advice even before he gave it. State senators Wednesday passed Senate Bill 62, which would block city, county and state agencies there from taking advantage of the high court's decision.

The Becket Fund cited 10 cases in its "friend of the court" brief, in which a municipality is or was trying to seize a church's private property and give or sell it to another private entity for commercial development. Without laws such as the one proposed in Texas, Leland warned that the Kelo decision could make such attempts more common.

"One could actually argue that St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City is in jeopardy of being seized [on behalf of], possibly, Donald Trump, who promises to increase the economic interests and generate greater tax revenue in the city," Leland said.

"Granted, that is a stretch of an example only because of the social and political implications that would have," he concluded. "But it's certainly possible under this new standard."

Hillary Clinton "Seething" Over Rick Santorum

2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was reportedly "seething" after what the New York Post says was a "frosty" encounter yesterday with her conservative Senate colleague Rick Santorum.

Clinton paused during a Capitol Hill interview with Post reporter Ian Bishop "to let out a week's worth of pent-up frustration," the paper said, over Santorum's new book, "It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good."

Santorum penned his tome in response to Clinton's own best-selling tribute to socialism, "It Takes a Village."

But up until now, the former first lady has held her fire.

"It takes a village, Rick, don't forget that," Clinton called out as the two passed in a narrow hallway.

"It takes a family," Santorum shot back through a veiled smile.

Not content to let the Pennsylvania Republican have the last word, Clinton responded, "Of course, a family is part of a village!"

The exchange may be the first of several debates between the two diamatrically opposed senators, if - as the Post posits - Santorum tosses his hat into the presidential ring in 2008 and challenges Mrs. Clinton.

Paul Weyrich: Every American Should Read 'Truth About Hillary'

Edward Klein's "The Truth About Hillary" has become a runaway New York Times best-seller.

NewsMax has learned it will make the New York Times top 10 best-seller list for the third week in a row - despite a near total ban on the book by major television shows.

And despite criticism from even opponents of Hillary Clinton that the book is just too sensational, one of the nation's most noted conservatives is strongly embracing the book.

"I was impressed with the amount of research which went into the book," Paul Weyrich, chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation, told NewsMax.

"Clearly this is a serious piece of work, not just a trash job," he added.

And then Weyrich endorsed it: "Every American needs to read this book so they understand what they will be getting if Hillary is elected president."

Weyrich has not only read the book, he also interviewed Klein this week on his Internet radio show, "The Right Hour."

"I came to this project with an open mind. And it was only after three years and 100 interviews and tons and tons of research that I concluded Hillary Clinton would be a clear and present danger if she ever sat in the Oval Office of the White House," Klein told Weyrich during the interview.

Klein is the author of four best-selling books about the Kennedys, a former overseas editor at Newsweek, and a former editor of the New York Times Magazine.

Klein told Weyrich his motivation was not to "get" Hillary, but he was simply looking for another "fascinating person" to write about when he began work on the book.

The completed book, however, has touched a very raw nerve in the Clinton camp.

Klein said he hoped his book will open the way for future writers, who may have been afraid to go ahead before now, to deal with some of these issues in greater depth.

The reaction to Klein's book by the mainstream media could not be more telling.

"All the television shows that I was booked to appear on, with two exceptions, which I'll get to in a minute, were canceled. That includes ABC's "Good Morning America," the Chris Matthews "Hardball" show, Joe Scarborough, Aaron Brown, Paula Zahn, "Fox and Friends," and I can go on and on," Klein said.

"They are all canceled under the hammer of the Clinton War Machine, which has gone to war with me and has tried to discredit me. And has called up these networks and told them if they have Ed Klein on, they are going to have a lot of trouble getting access to Hillary, and they have all crumbled, believe it or not. It's hard to believe, I know, but that is the kind of power that Mrs. Clinton and her office wield."

Sen. Clinton is now the front-runner in the race for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008.

Klein said she has gone around the country building up political IOUs from state and local politicians.

She is far ahead of other possible Democratic candidates in fundraising, and a strategy organization, the Glover Park Group, is already in place, noted Klein.

"The Democrats cannot accept the fact that they are not in power," he added.

N.Y. Times Alters Hillary Clinton's Immigration Quote

There they go again, making up the news.

The New York Times took a breather yesterday from covering the Karl Rove pseudo-scandal to tout "The Evolution of Hillary Clinton" - a tribute to the ambitious Democrat's newfound voice of moderation.

Among the maneuvers cited by the Old Gray Lady was Mrs. Clinton's purported shift to the right on the hot-button issue of immigration.

Included in the evidence cited by the Times: Hillary's quote to WABC Radio's John Gambling on Feb. 11, 2003, wherein she proclaimed, "I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigration."

The only problem is, Mrs. Clinton never spoke those words.

Apparently, the Times was offended by what she actually said, which was: "I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants" - a quote first reported by NewsMax an hour after Clinton uttered it.

The distinction is important, since, in the Times version, Mrs. Clinton is condemning the crime of illegal immigration, while in realty, what Hillary did was state her opposition to the immigrants themselves.

That's not very politically correct. In fact, we'd venture to guess that if a Republican had blurted out that he was "adamantly against illegal immigrants," the Times would undoubtedly condemn the hapless GOP'er as a racist.

Somehow, every other news agency that has picked up Mrs. Clinton's blast at "illegal immigrants" in the ensuing two years - including the Washington Times, the National Review, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and MSNBC - managed to get the quote correct.

Only the folks at America's so-called "paper of record" decided that Hillary's words needed doctoring.

Summary of the week

Hot Topics from the last week:

Hurricane Dennis: Lots of rain, wind, and floods. An insurance companies nightmare.

The Supreme Court: Lots of arguing, so far no definent candidates.

Karl Rowe: Democrats call fowl, although most are still unsure if anything was done illegally. (And who elected these guys?)

G8 summit: Went well.

London Bombs: Scotland Yard has been able to positively identify 3 of the 4 men who caused the explosions. So far there has been 52 confirmed deaths.

Natalee Holloway: Aruba has kept tight lips and continues to send mixed messages to the press. This is turning out more aggravating than blind date with a professional mime. Would someone please just simply say if the three guys accused of her disappearance confessed. A simple yes or no would suffice.

More news to come soon...

Four London Blasts Kill 40, Injure 350

Four blasts rocked the London subway and tore open a packed double-decker bus during the morning rush hour Thursday, sending bloodied victims fleeing in the worst attack on London since World War II. At least 40 people were killed, U.S. officials said, and more than 360 wounded in the terror attacks.

A clearly shaken Prime Minister Tony Blair called the coordinated attacks "barbaric" and said they were designed to coincide with the G-8 summit opening in Gleneagles, Scotland. They also came a day after London won the bid to host the 2012 Olympics. A group calling itself "The Secret Organization of al-Qaida in Europe" claimed responsibility.

The four explosions went off within 40 minutes, beginning at 8:51 a.m. (3:51 a.m. EDT), and hit three subway stations and the double-decker bus. Authorities immediately shut down the subway and bus lines that log 8.4 million passenger trips every weekday.

The explosion seemed to go off at the back of the bus, said bystander Raj Mattoo, 35. "The roof flew off and went up about 10 meters (30 feet). It then floated back down," he said. "There were obviously people badly injured. A parking attendant said he thought a piece of human flesh had landed on his arm."

"It was chaos," said Gary Lewis, 32, who was evacuated from a subway train at King's Cross station. "The one haunting image was someone whose face was totally black and pouring with blood."

As the city's transportation system ground to a near-halt, buses were used as ambulances and an emergency medical station was set up at a hotel. Rescue workers, police and ordinary citizens streamed into the streets to help.

Some central London streets emptied of traffic. Groups of commuters who had been on their way to work gathered around corner shops with televisions, watching in silence. The mood was somber and subdued.

At the request of Queen Elizabeth II, the Union Jack flag flying over Buckingham Palace was lowered to half staff.

Blair, flanked by fellow G-8 leaders, including President Bush, read a statement from the leaders. "We shall prevail and they shall not," he said.

"Whatever they do, it is our determination that they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear in this country and in other civilized nations throughout the world," he said earlier.

He departed by helicopter back to London. The world leaders continued meeting but their agenda got sidetracked and they decided to delay declarations on climate change and the global economy.

Bush warned Americans to be "extra vigilant," and his administration raised the terror alert for mass transit a notch to code orange. Security also was stepped up in the U.S. Capitol and in train and bus stations around the country.

Much of Europe also went on alert. Italy's airports raised alert levels to a maximum. The Czech Republic, Hungary, Russia, the Netherlands, France and Spain also announced beefed-up security at shopping centers, airports, railways and subways.

The U.N. Security Council was to meet later Thursday to address the London attacks and was expected to pass a resolution condemning the blasts, an official said.

A group calling itself "The Secret Organization of al-Qaida in Europe" posted a claim of responsibility, saying the blasts were in retaliation for Britain's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The statement also threatened attacks in Italy and Denmark, both of which have troops in Iraq. It was published on a Web site popular with Islamic militants, and the text was republished on Elaph, a secular Arabic-language news Web site, and Berlin's Der Spiegel magazine.

The authenticity of the statement could not be immediately confirmed, but terrorism experts said the coordinated explosions had the trademarks of the al-Qaida network.

"This is clearly an al-Qaida style attack. It was well-coordinated, it was timed for a political event and it was a multiple attack on a transportation system at rush hour," said Lawrence Freedman, professor of war studies at King's College in London.

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Brian Paddick said there had been no arrests, and it was unclear whether suicide bombers were involved.

Asked about the claim of responsibility, Paddick said: "We will be looking at that ... at the moment we don't know if that's a legitimate claim or not." He added British officials had received no prior warning nor did they have any advance intelligence that the attacks would occur.

European stocks dropped sharply after the blasts, with exchanges in London, Paris and Germany all down about 2 percent. Insurance and travel-related stocks were hit hard, and the British pound also fell. Gold, traditionally seen as a safe haven, rose.

The explosions also unnerved traders on Wall Street, sending stocks down sharply.

Three U.S. law enforcement officials said at least 40 people were killed. They spoke on condition of anonymity and said they learned of the number from their British counterparts.

In London, Paddick said at least 33 people killed in the subway system alone. He confirmed other deaths on the bus but gave no figures.

Officials at seven major hospitals surveyed by The Associated Press reported 368 people wounded. Among them, at least 45 were in serious or critical condition, including amputations, fractures and burns, said Russell Smith of London Ambulance Service.

London Mayor Ken Livingstone said the blasts were "mass murder" carried out by terrorists bent on "indiscriminate ... slaughter."

"This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty or the powerful ... it was aimed at ordinary working-class Londoners," said Livingstone, in Singapore where he supported London's Olympic bid. Giselle Davies, an International Olympic Committee spokeswoman, said the committee still had "full confidence" in London.

Jay Kumar, a business owner near the site of the bus blast at Russell Square in central London, said he ran out of his shop when he heard a loud explosion. He said the bus's top deck collapsed, sending people tumbling to the floor.

Many appeared badly injured, and bloodied people ran from the scene.

"A big blast, a big bomb," he told The Associated Press. "People were running this way panicked. They knew it was a bomb. Debris flying all over, mostly glass."

"I was on the bus in front and heard an incredible bang, I turned round and half the double decker bus was in the air," Belinda Seabrook told Press Association, the British news agency.

Traces of explosives were found at two explosion sites, a senior police official said.

Explosions were reported at the Aldgate station near the Liverpool Street railway terminal, Edgware Road and King's Cross in north London, Old Street in the financial district and Russell Square, near the British Museum.

"I saw lots of people coming out covered in blood and soot. Black smoke was coming from the station. I saw several people laid out on sheets," office worker Kibir Chibber, 24, said at the Aldgate subway station.

Simon Corvett, 26, on an eastbound train from Edgware Road station, described "this massive huge bang ... It was absolutely deafening and all the windows shattered."

"You could see the carriage opposite was completely gutted," he said. "There were some people in real trouble."

On March 11, 2004, terrorist bombs on four commuter trains in Madrid killed 191 people.

New Issue Out On The Fourth

Hey Happy Fourth Every One!!

Hope you all enjoy getting the new issue a little early. If you couldn't download it off the e-mail just visit the link to the website, and you will be able to download it from there.

http://www.angelfire.com/dragon2/future_gop