The New American Way

There have been alot of articles about the new movie Superman Returns. Continuing with the comic books turned movies Superman Returns is packed with all the old characters and cliches we love. But what has struck many critics is the new rendition of Superman alma mata "Truth, Justice, and the American way".

In the movie Daily Planet editor Perry White, played by Frank Langella, asks his reporters to find out if Superman is still for "Truth, and Justice" leaving out the rest.

Does this make the movie anti-american?

No, it does not.

Superman Returns starts of in a world that feels it no longer needs Superman. But he continues to defend and protect and ultimately saves the world from Lex Luther. Thus ensuring that we need him.

How can returning to a world under appreciated, saving it, and becoming a hero to all anti-american?

Think about it, right now in the world many don't like America. Actually alot of countries never have liked us to begin with and their true colors are finially beginning to show. But we continue to fight against terrorism or in Superman terms truth and justice.

The focus of the movie, in my opinion, was not portray Superman in any other light than a hero. Several times he is reffered to as a savior to help people understand how to love and not be evil.

Perhaps the writers didn't feel it neccesary to say "the American way" because it would be redundant, and not because they feared it being to imperialist as many have charged.

Fighting for truth, justice, and a little bit of slack Superman Returns is a great movie.

Al Gore: Bush 'Broke the Law'

Al Gore charges that President George Bush has "broken the law” and implies that Congress should have initiated impeachment proceedings against Bush for unspecified crimes.

In a fund-raising e-mail sent out under the banner of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee with the subject line "Unprecedented,” Gore declares:

"The evidence now makes it hard to avoid the conclusion that George Bush has repeatedly and insistently broken the law and the corrupt Republican Congress has shirked its constitutional duty to hold him to account."

While Gore omitted using the "i" word, the consititutional remedy for a president who breaks the law is the House's impeachment process followed by a trial before the Senate.

"In my view, a president who breaks the law poses a threat to the very foundation of our democracy," Gore said, noting the seriousness of his allegation. "As Americans with a stake in the future of our country, we must act quickly and decisively. We have less than five months to win the six seats we need to control the Senate – and pull our country back from the brink of a constitutional crisis.”

Gore states that Bush’s "nightmarish regime” has been responsible for an "unprecedented expansion” of executive power and says: "I have never seen leaders that act with the contempt for the truth that I have witnessed in George Bush’s administration.”

The e-mail seeks contributions of $50, $75, or more to aid senatorial candidates and sets a goal of raising $1 million before June 30 to counter the Bush administration’s "truly breathtaking disregard for American values.”

Ironically, Gore notes that he has run for president twice and says: "I know what it takes to win.”

Sen. Jim Bunning: N.Y. Times Committed Treason

Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., has added his voice to those charging that the New York Times committed treason by revealing details of a government program that tracks financial transactions by al-Qaida and other terrorist groups.

"That the press wouldn’t have better sense than to leak critical information on terrorists so that they know what we’re doing – that scares the devil out of me,” the Kentucky Republican told reporters.

Bunning said Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should empanel a grand jury to decide if the Times’ publisher, editors and writers who were involved in the story should be indicted for treason, the Louisville Courier-Journal reports.

"In my opinion, that is giving aid and comfort to the enemy; therefore it is an act of treason,” Bunning said. "What you write in a war and what is legal to do for the federal government, or state government, whoever it is, is very important in winning the war on terror.”

The Senator’s spokesman Mike Reynard said Bunning was singling out the Times, even though the Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal published similar articles, because the New York paper was the first to run the story.

"The New York Times drove this story,” Reynard told the Courier-Journal.

Former Attorney General Ed Meese on Monday accused the New York Times of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy,” a term that fits the definition of treason.

And on Sunday, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., urged the Bush administration to seek criminal charges against the Times for its reporting on the secret financial-monitoring program.

We’re at war,” the New York Republican declared, "and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous.”

Katie Couric's Hillary Play

Taking a page from the Hillary Clinton playbook, TV morning host-turned-evening newscaster Katie Couric is going on a listening tour.

The soon to be CBS anchor will be touring a half-dozen American cities and having forums with residents to determine the kind of news broadcast she'll unveil this September.

Katie's listening tour is still in the planning stages but events in Denver and San Diego have already been scheduled for July.

Apparently, Couric came up with the ear inspiring idea so that she could get a sense of which issues are on the minds of Americans and how folks feel about media coverage.

There are no plans to put participants on camera so they will supposedly be able to freely speak their minds.

The Left Coast Report says if Katie drops anchor in your town tell her to do something brand new for CBS - unbiased reporting.

FCC Reviewing Controls on Big Media

The Federal Communications Commission kicked off a review on Wednesday of its media ownership rules. You may have caught this news on cable TV; or on an iPod; cell phone; BlackBerry; Treo; AM, FM or satellite radio; in your newspaper; or on one of the countless Internet news sites and discussion blogs. Maybe a friend e-mailed it to you.

The FCC review is all about whether the owner of a TV station should be allowed to own another TV station or a newspaper in the same town. Sounds quaint, doesn't it?

At a time when it seems everybody can be a publisher or broadcaster -- or podcaster -- when new media outlets are flowering every day, we're heading back to a debate about whether the government needs to curb the appetite of so-called "big media."
Ban on Cross-Ownership?
FCC Chairman Kevin Martin promised a comprehensive review that will take into account the "competitive realities of the media marketplace" and the goal of promoting diverse voices in local media. The FCC under Martin's predecessor, Michael Powell, tried to do just that three years ago.

Essentially, it voted to lift the ban on cross-ownership of TV stations and newspapers in larger markets and loosened the criteria for owning additional media outlets. The new rules, however, caused a huge protest over media consolidation and have been tied up in litigation.

Since that last go-around, consumers have latched onto many more media outlets and a seemingly endless array of new ways to have information delivered, while newspaper circulation and broadcast TV viewership have been buffeted by that new competition. There may be no business sector in the nation today that enjoys more broad, diverse and robust competition.
Involving the Public

Nevertheless, the FCC decision to revisit media ownership has touched off another round of cries that a handful of big companies want to control what you read and hear.

The Chicago Tribune is owned by one of the larger media companies. You may have seen that company in the news lately. It has supported an end to cross-ownership rules -- not so it can control what you see and hear, but so it can find its way in this extremely competitive media environment without the government putting up needless obstacles.

Kevin Martin has said that the FCC will be more expansive this time in its consideration of cross-ownership. It will conduct more research into how to measure diversity and competition in markets. There will be more public hearings and more time for the public to comment.

That's all well and good. A vigorous and public debate should give people a better understanding of this issue, to erase the baseless fear that somehow a few companies will control every bit of information you receive.

So, bring on the debate.

FCC Commissioner Michael Copps has vowed to resist loosening these "rules that will reshape the American media." He must not have noticed that the reshaping of American media is well under way. The FCC is playing catch-up.

High Court mulls greenhouse gas regulation

The Supreme Court plunged on Monday into the acrimonious debate over global warming and whether the government should regulate "greenhouse" gases, especially carbon dioxide from cars. The ruling could be one of the court's most important ever on the environment.

Spurred by states in a pollution battle with the Bush administration, the court said it would decide whether the Environmental Protection Agency is required under the federal clean air law to treat carbon dioxide from automobiles as a pollutant harmful to health.

The decision could determine how the nation addresses global warming.

President Bush has rejected calls by environmentalists and some lawmakers in Congress to regulate carbon dioxide, the leading heat-trapping "greenhouse" gas going into the atmosphere. Bush favors voluntary actions and development of new technologies to curtail such emissions.

But a dozen states argued that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping chemicals from automobile tailpipes should be treated as unhealthy pollutants. They filed a lawsuit in an effort to force the EPA to curtail such emissions just as it does cancer-causing lead and chemicals that produce smog and acid rain.

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to take the case after a divided lower court sided with the administration. Arguments will be late this year, with a ruling by next June.

"This is going to be the first major statement by the Supreme Court on climate change. ... This is the whole ball of wax," said David Bookbinder, an attorney for the Sierra Club, one of a number of environmental groups that joined the states in their appeal to the high court.

While the case doesn't specifically involve carbon releases from power plants, environmentalists said a court decision declaring carbon dioxide a harmful pollutant would make it hard for the agency to avoid action involving power plants which account for 40 percent or the carbon dioxide released into the air.

Cars and trucks account for about half that amount.

The EPA said in a statement that the agency "is confident in its decision" not to regulate the chemical under the federal Clean Air Act and plans to argue its case vigorously before the high court

Recently, Bush told reporters he views global warming as a serious problem and has "a plan to be able to deal with greenhouse gases" short of regulating their use. It includes developing new technologies for cleaner burning coal, using alternative motor fuels such as ethanol as substitutes for gasoline and expanding nuclear power to produce electricity.

Critics argue that carbon emissions have continued to increase — though the rate of increase has declined — and only regulation of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will stem the amount going into the atmosphere.

"It is encouraging that the high court feels this case needs to be reviewed," said Sen. Jim Jeffords, I-Vt., who has campaigned in Congress to regulate carbon dioxide. "It is high time to stop relying on technicalities and finger pointing to avoid action on climate change."

The states involved, which together account for more than a third of the car market, say the Clean Air Act makes clear carbon dioxide is a pollutant that should be regulated if it poses a danger to public health and welfare. They argue it does so by causing a warming of the earth.

The administration maintains that unlike other chemicals that must be controlled to ensure healthy air, carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is not a dangerous pollutant under the federal law. And, officials argue, even if it is, the EPA has discretion over whether to regulate it, considering the economic costs involved.

The agency should not be required to "embark on the extraordinarily complex and scientifically uncertain task of addressing the global issue of greenhouse gas emissions" when voluntary ways to address climate change are available, the administration argued in its filing with the high court.

While a federal appeals court sided with the administration, its ruling was mixed.

One judge said the states and other plaintiffs had no standing because they had not proven harm. A second judge said even if the law gave the EPA authority to regulate carbon dioxide, the agency was not obligated to do so. A third judge, in the minority, said the EPA was violating the law by not regulating the chemical.

In their appeal, the states maintained the case "goes to the heart of the EPA's statutory responsibilities to deal with the most pressing environmental problem of our time" — the threat of global warming.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit were California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. They were joined by a number of cities including Baltimore, New York City and Washington D.C., the Pacific island of America Samoa, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Greenpeace, and Friends of the Earth.

The case is Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 05-1120

Left-Wing Magazine Blasts Hillary

The country's leading left-wing publication, The Nation, has turned on liberal darling Hillary Clinton in a scathing article headlined "Hillary's Hypocrisy."

The article by Robert Scheer begins: "How do you triangulate among death, hypocrisy and stupidity? Not at all logically, which is why Hillary Clinton's dissembling on Iraq has become a fatal embarrassment, not only for her, but for anyone who hopes she can provide progressive leadership for the nation.

"If she still has not found the courage to reverse course on this disastrous war, why assume that as president she would behave any differently?"

Scheer writes that it is "unconscionable" that many who oppose the war in Iraq prefer Clinton to potential 2008 presidential rivals John Kerry, John Edwards, Al Gore, and Russ Feingold, who have all called for the U.S. to extricate itself from the conflict.

The Nation article cites Clinton's recent statement that she doesn't think it is "smart strategy to set a date certain" for withdrawing from Iraq. "I do not agree that that is in the best interests."

Scheer writes: "Clinton needs to stop prattling on about getting the Iraqi government to do this or that wonderful thing before we can pull out."

He concludes that Hillary's supporters "are eager to win back at least one branch of Congress in the midterm election in order to revitalize our Constitution's bedrock system of checks and balances and are looking to Clinton to help get them there.

"But what check or balance is Sen. Clinton presenting on the most pressing issue of the day? None."

Dallas County Wants Refunds for Mexicans' Health Care

pay for the medical care given to Mexican nationals at a local hospital.

Each year, Dallas County taxpayers spend $15 million to treat Mexican nationals at Parkland Hospital - and that total includes only the first two days of the patients' emergency care, according to CBS 11 News in Dallas.

"We will be sending a bill to Mexico's president to explain to him and to the embassy how much money it is costing the Dallas County taxpayer to treat their residents, and they need to reimburse Dallas County," said County Judge Margaret Keliher.

Jesse Diaz, local president of the League of United Latin American Citizens, complained: "Why punish Mexico? Mexico should not be a scapegoat ... the immigrants are paying taxes, buying homes and cars, and are contributing to the economy."

Dallas County will also send bills to nearby Texas counties whose residents seek care at Parkland - running up a tab of nearly $27 million a year, according to Keliher.

Dallas can't force those other counties to pay up. But Parkland's board chair Dr. Lauren McDonald said if outsiders don't pay their fair share of emergency and trauma care, it will have a devastating effect on the hospital and those who rely on it.

Big Increase in Latino Elected Officials

Latinos have increased their presence at all levels of government by 37 percent over the last 10 years, a Hispanic political group reports.

At the start of 2006, 5,132 Hispanics were in elected office around the country, compared to 3,743 in 1996, according to a study announced at the annual convention of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials.

"It's in everyone's interest, it's in every party's interest, to cultivate the number of Hispanic elected officials," said Adam J. Segal, director of the Hispanic Voter Project at Johns Hopkins University.

Latino elected officials now hold office in 43 states, although 42 percent of them are in Texas.

Most other Latino officials were elected in areas with large Hispanic populations, such as California, Florida, New Jersey, New York, and Illinois, the Houston Chronicle reports.

In 1996, there were no Latino senators and some states had no Hispanics in office. Now there are three Hispanics in the U.S. Senate, representing Colorado (Ken Salazar), Florida (Mel Martinez) and New Jersey (Robert Menendez).

Although they hold the posts of governors, federal officials and state lawmakers, two-thirds of the country's Latino officeholders are working at either the municipal or school board level.

In 2004, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson was considered a strong choice to be John Kerry's running mate. Richardson is now running for a second term as governor in November and has been mentioned as a possible name on the Democratic ticket in the next presidential election.

"I think Americans are getting used to voting for Hispanics," Simon Rosenberg, president of the New Democrat Network, told the Chronicle. "It was a novelty before."

Laura Bush: George Brings Me Coffee In Bed Every Morning

Early to bed, early to rise. That's a typical day at the White House, says Laura Bush.

"We get up about 5:30 a.m. The president gets up and goes in and gets the coffee and brings it back to me in bed. Very nice of him," she said Wednesday, answering a question during a round-table with foreign exchange students.

"Record that, please," the president interjected.

"Then, we have three animals that get up at the same time and they have to go out - two dogs and a cat," she said.

The Bushes read the newspapers and drink coffee until it's time to get moving.

Breakfast at about 6:30 a.m., and President Bush is in his office a half-hour later.

"The president goes to work at the West Wing, which is right there - we live where we work," she explained. "It's sort of like living above the shop."

The first lady gets to her East Wing office around 9 a.m.

Unless one or both Bushes are traveling, they usually are back upstairs in the White House residence quarters by 5:30 p.m. or 6 p.m. for dinner, and are often joined by their 24-year-old twin daughters, Barbara and Jenna.

"One of them was just living with us, but she just has moved out," said Laura Bush, who usually is tightlipped about their daughters' doings. She was talking about Barbara, who is said to have recently left Washington for New York City.

"The other one lives in an apartment and is teaching school, she's a third-grade schoolteacher," the first lady said, speaking of Jenna, who teaches in Washington

Sen. Santorum: Saddam's WMD Are a Fact

During Wednesday’s debate on Capitol Hill on whether to resolve to remove U.S. troops from Iraq by a time certain, Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., resurrected the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) issue, pointing out the claim by several Senate Democrats that no WMD had been found in Iraq is disproved by a declassified document - according to a Fox News report.

"This is an incredibly - in my mind - significant finding. The idea that, as my colleagues have repeatedly said in this debate on the other side of the aisle, that there are no weapons of mass destruction, is in fact false,” Santorum argued.

The lawmaker read from a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit:

"Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions, which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq’s pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.”

However, a senior Defense Department official pointed out to Fox News that the chemical weapons in question were not in useable condition.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991,” the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMD this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMD for which this country went to war.”

The same official conceded that the findings did raise questions about the years of weapons inspections that had not resulted in locating the trove of chemical weapons. He further noted that the report suggested that some of the weapons were likely put on the black market and may have been used outside Iraq.

Joining Santorum at a Wednesday evening press conference, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, a fellow Republican from Michigan, also pointed to yet other unclassified portions of the intelligence report.

"This says weapons have been discovered, more weapons exist, and they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone, that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq,” said Hoekstra, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Hoekstra added that the report shows that "there is still a lot about Iraq that we don’t fully understand,” and that he is going to ask for more reporting by the various intelligence agencies about weapons of mass destruction.

"[W]e are going to put additional pressure on the Department of Defense and the folks in Iraq to more fully pursue a complete investigation of what existed in Iraq before the war,” Hoekstra said.

Meanwhile, Senate Republicans are reportedly poised to reject two Democratic-sponsored resolutions today that would press President Bush to start withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq.

Former Mossad Chief: Iran Weakening, May Do Deal

Former Mossad Director Efraim Halevy told NewsMax in an exclusive interview in Jerusalem that he is seeing signs the leadership in Iran may be weakening in its opposition to the Western offer of nuclear negotiations.

Despite repeated claims by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Iran will "never give up" its uranium enrichment program, Halevy said that Iran's supreme leader and his entourage have been measuring the economic and strategic damage that would result from serious international sanctions on Iran.

"They are beginning to realize that the array of sanctions and other measures that will be imposed on them if they refuse poses a formidable threat to them," Halevy said.

"I am seeing some signs that they are beginning to take it seriously." European diplomatic chief Javier Solana delivered the international "ultimatum" to Iran on June 6. Most press accounts have focused on the extensive benefits the great powers offered Iran if it agreed to verifiably suspend its uranium enrichment and reprocessing programs, and open its facilities to transparent international inspections. But President Bush and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have also made clear that Iran would pay a steep price if it rejected the two conditions to talk.

"The Iranian regime must persuasively demonstrate that it has permanently abandoned its quest for nuclear weapons," Rice said on May 31, when she announced the offer of negotiations.

If the regime refused the offer, "it will incur only great costs," Rice said. "We and our European partners agree that path will lead to international isolation and progressively stronger political and economic sanctions."

Halevy believed the full extent of those costs has begun to weigh on Iran's leaders, and will motivate them to take the deal. While many have speculated that Israel would have to take unilateral military action to disable Iran's nuclear weapons program, Halevy felt that was unlikely. "I believe the international community will succeed in getting it under control, through some mixture of sanctions and diplomacy," he said.



Halevy retired after five years as Mossad director in October 2002, and subsequently was named by prime minister Ariel Sharon to head the National Security Council, an advisory body to the government. He now directs the Hebrew University Center for Strategic and Policy Center in Jerusalem.

He spoke to NewsMax in Jerusalem on Wednesday, June 21.


NewsMax: Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said recently, "Under no circumstances and at no time can Israel allow anyone with malicious designs against us to have control of weapons of destruction that threaten our existence," and that Iran was just a "few months" from weapons capability.

At what point does Iran become Israel's problem?

Halevy: Iran already is Israel's problem. Iran has been battling Israel ever since Khomeini came to power in 1979. They've been battling Israel on five fronts: By their denial of Israel's right to exist; by the creation of an army, Hezbollah, positioned on Israel's northern border [with Lebanon], and by giving Hezbollah military capabilities – especially missiles – that threaten large areas of Israel; by carrying out terrorist subversive activities against Israel in far flung places, such as the [1992] attack on Israel's embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina or the [1994] attack on the AMIA Jewish Center in Argentina ;by penetrating the Palestinian territories and setting up terrorist capabilities there; and by trying to assemble a nuclear weapons capability.


Iran's avowed aim is to destroy Israel. So it's not when will Iran become a threat; Iran has always been a threat to Israel.

NewsMax: Under what circumstances would Israel contemplate taking unilateral military action against Iran? When will Iran become such an imminent threat as to make that necessary?

Halevy: I don't think things will reach that stage, where unilateral military action will become necessary. I believe the international community will succeed in getting it under control, through some mixture of sanctions and diplomacy. That's how it always is . . . a mixture of brain and brawn.

NewsMax: Recently, President Bush changed course and offered negotiations to Iran on condition that Iran verifiably suspend all uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities, and open its nuclear facilities to comprehensive inspections. Do you think this was wise?

Halevy: It's too early to tell. I'm observing it, watching developments.

NewsMax: Iranian President Ahmadinejad has said repeatedly Iran will never give up uranium enrichment. Do you believe he can reverse course and accept the conditions the international community has laid down?

Halevy: It's not just in Ahmadinejad's hands. It's in the hands of the leadership. He's part of that, but he doesn't control it. It depends on how the leadership assesses the threats pointed at them if they don't accept the offer of negotiations.

They are beginning to realize that the array of sanctions and other measures that will be imposed on them if they refuse poses a formidable threat to them. I am seeing some signs that they are beginning to take it seriously.

NewsMax: How good is Israel's intelligence on Iran?

Halevy: . . . no intelligence officer is ever comfortable with what he knows. You always want to know more.

Former Defense Sec. Perry Wants N. Korean Missile Destroyed

Former defense secretary William J. Perry says the U.S. should launch a preemptive strike against the long-range ballistic missile that North Korea is reportedly preparing to launch.

In an opinion piece in the Washington Post, Perry and former assistant defense secretary Ashton B. Carter argue that if North Korea continues launch preparations, President Bush should immediately declare that the U.S. will destroy the Taepodong missile before it can be launched.

Perry and Carter suggest using a cruise missile launched from a submarine and carrying a high-explosive warhead.

"The effect on the Taepodong would be devastating," they write. "The multi-story, thin-skinned missile filled with high-energy fuel is itself explosive - the U.S. air strike would puncture the missile and probably cause it to explode."


As President Bill Clinton's defense secretary, Perry oversaw preparation for air strikes on North Korean nuclear facilities in 1994 - strikes that were never carried out.

He has been a critic of the Bush administration's approach to North Korea, according to the Post.

"We believe diplomacy might have precluded the current situation," Perry and Carter said. "But diplomacy has failed, and we cannot sit by and let this deadly threat mature."

On Wednesday, the U.S. ambassador to Japan stated that "all options are on the table" with regard to North Korea.

Pelosi Reveals Dem Takeover Agenda

If they retake control of Congress, Democrats will act quickly to increase the minimum wage, lower prescription drug costs and slash interest rates on student loans, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Saturday.

The ideas are part of the Democrats' new domestic agenda, named "New Direction for America," which the party rolled out during the past week. Pelosi, D-Calif., used the party's Saturday radio address to promote the plan.

"A new direction means expanding access to affordable health care for Americans. We will begin by lowering the cost of prescription drugs by putting seniors ahead of pharmaceutical companies and HMOs," Pelosi said.

Lieberman 'Proud' to Work with Republicans

Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman says he works with Republicans and he's proud of it.

The three-term Connecticut senator faces criticism from some state Democrats and primary challenger Ned Lamont, who contend that Lieberman is too close to President Bush and the GOP on the Iraq war and other issues.

Lieberman answered on Monday, defending his work with Republicans and arguing that Lamont, if elected, would add to the capital's political polarization.

"Washington has become much too partisan and that partisanship gets in the way of doing the job that you send us to do," Lieberman said.

Lieberman dismissed a question about whether he is taking a risk by boasting about his bipartisanship, especially with the Aug. 8 primary looming and Lamont gaining in the polls though still down by double digits.

"I'm telling the truth," he told reporters. "Whether it's risky or not, I don't know."

Lamont, a Greenwich, Conn., businessman who has spent more than $1.5 million of his money on the primary, said: "I'll work with Republicans where I think it's appropriate. But darn it, I'll challenge President Bush where he's wrong."

On Monday, Lamont received the endorsement of George Jepsen, former chairman of the state Democratic Party. He also has the backing of former independent Gov. Lowell Weicker, who was a Republican when he lost his Senate seat to Lieberman in 1988.

Lieberman said again Monday that he will run in the Democratic primary but has not ruled out gathering signatures to get on the November ballot as an unaffiliated candidate if he loses.

"I will be in the Democratic primary," he said. "I have been a Democrat all my life."

Hillary on GOP: 'They Can't Stomach Me'

A recent fund-raising letter from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is seeking re-election this year in New York, does not mention the state, but it slips eight references to "America" or "Americans" into two pages.

The letter points to a fact of life in the world of New York's junior senator, who many think may be a contender for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination: The national stage is there, and she is making use of it.

In recent weeks, the wife of former President Bill Clinton has begun a series of national policy addresses. The economy was the topic in Chicago in April, and it was energy during a speech in Washington in May. The focus was on privacy in a Friday address to the American Constitution Society in Washington.

At the end of next month, Clinton gives her report to the moderate Democratic Leadership Conference meeting in Denver on the "American Dream Initiative" effort she has led to devise an agenda for the country and party.

Unlike earlier fund-raising appeals, the recent letter contains no mention of potential Senate race opponents. There is plenty of talk about national Republicans and their apparent dislike for her.

"My name is at the top of their list," her Friends of Hillary letter begins as she quickly launches into an attack on "Washington Republicans."

"The Republicans can't stomach the fact that I'm leading the fight against their misplaced priorities," Clinton writes. "That's why Karl Rove was quoted as saying, 'We have to do something about her.'

"It's no secret that they are willing to spend millions of dollars to tear me down between now and Election Day," she adds.

"It's blatant talk about a presidential run that doesn't even attempt to conceal the fact that she's looking ahead to '08," said Brian Nick, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Not so, said Clinton campaign spokeswoman Ann Lewis.

"We talk about national priorities because we know that's a big concern for our supporters," Lewis said. "This letter goes to donors around country who support HRC because she is a leader on issues they care about.

"This is about the '06 campaign and making sure we have the resources," said Lewis, noting that the particular letter has been used for several months.

At the end of March, Clinton already had a very big resource advantage - $20 million, according to federal campaign filings. Former Yonkers Mayor John Spencer and Reagan-era Pentagon official Kathleen Troia "KT" McFarland, who are competing for the GOP Senate nomination, each had less than $500,000 on hand.

Statewide polls have Clinton with 2-1 leads over Spencer or McFarland, and national polls put her atop the list of potential Democratic presidential contenders.

"If re-elected, Senator Clinton won't be in the Senate or in Syracuse, she will be gallivanting through the cornfields of Iowa or fundraising in Hollywood with Barbara Streisand, Warren Beatty and Sean Penn," said Spencer's campaign manager, Kevin Collins. "She's already a carpetbagger, now she's an absentee landlord too."

In her more than 30-minute speech to the Democratic state convention in Buffalo two weeks ago, Clinton bashed the Bush administration repeatedly.

"We need a fundamentally new direction," she said as her smiling husband applauded from the audience.

"With hard work, we will take our country back," she promised.

"Mrs. Clinton is an ambitious woman, and I have no problem with that," McFarland told the Associated Press on Wednesday. "But it has become increasingly obvious that her focus is on national politics, not New York. That's unfortunate, because 20 million New Yorkers deserve a senator who is committed full-time to their interests and to their interests alone."

"It's a delicate balance because she is running for re-election now," said Chicago-based Democratic consultant David Axelrod. "But by speaking out on these issues, she fulfills her obligation as a national leader - and she is viewed as a national leader - and she's also speaking out on issues that are important to New Yorkers."

"It serves her interests in running for re-election," said Axelrod, who is not involved with the Clinton campaign. "And it strengthens her if she makes the decision to go forward on the other front."

Celebrity Vampire Madonna

At some point all celebrities grow older, fall out of favor and no longer make the A-list.

In trying to ward off the inevitable, Madonna looks like she's taking a different tack. Her response to her own impending descent seems to be to turn into a vampire of the celebrity kind.

She's not sucking blood, but she is appropriating the life force out of younger trendier celebs.

First, Madonna became Britney Spears' Svengali, introducing Spears to the Hollywood Kabbalah faith and convincing her to engage in a same sex TV smooch.

But these days Britney is not as hot as she once was and a new "it" girl seems to have snagged her spot, at least when it comes to Madonna.

Evidently the material girl has dumped Britney and is poised to suck the celebrity plasma out of Lindsay Lohan.

Ostensibly the reason that Madonna changed girlfriends is because Britney is no longer a wholehearted Kabbalah follower.

Lohan, on the other hand, says she's "looking into Kabbalah."

Madonna reportedly now wants to record a duet with Lohan and wants to appear in a movie with the young starlet.

The Left Coast Report advises Lindsay to slip a cross around her neck and down some extra hearty shrimp scampi.

Christian Coalition and MoveOn Join Hands

In August 2005 the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) changed the legal status of telephone companies by lifting restrictions that previously kept them from competing with cable companies. Their newfound freedom begins 12 months from the August 2005 decision.

The time for implementation has just about arrived. Phone companies are readying themselves to add cable TV and beef up Internet access services in a way that they have previously been unable to.

Along with the new avenues that are opening up to the phone companies comes a new term, one that sounds innocuous. It's called "Net neutrality" and involves an issue that will impact every single one of us.

Net neutrality is short for network neutrality and it pertains to the Internet. Simply defined it means that the Internet has always been a place where everyone can enter the cyber territory. It is essential that it remain so.

It's the way the Internet has always worked. The operation exemplifies one of the maxims of American jurisprudence: equal opportunity. But with the FCC changes going into effect there is a growing concern about the regulations' influence on the net, particularly the impact on the way in which services are processed and content is handled.

This brings up two critical questions: Who will ultimately control the Internet and will content be a determining factor for access?

Here are the digital dynamics. Corporate giants are looking to protect or expand their cyber-turf. The new net rules have created an ultimate tag team death match between AT&T and Verizon in one corner and Google and Microsoft in the other.

The referee of the match is the government, which has long sought to gain a greater regulatory foothold over the Internet.

Also the providers of high-speed Internet access want to create a multi-tiered system and charge more dollars for a faster connection. Think of this as a sort of Internet tollway. But are we to have different tiers of service and additional costs depending on content?

Right now anyone who uses the Internet should be hearing alarm bells. The free marketplace of ideas, which was an original rationale behind the First Amendment, has up until now been fully realized in the Internet's display of variety, innovation and individual autonomy.

In addition to being an unparalleled bastion of free _expression, the Internet has always been a place where access was in no way determined by content. Folks could hit the information superhighway regardless of the provisions in their backpacks, cash in their cars or junk in their trunk. What was taken along on one's journey was irrelevant. It's a romantic notion that became a reality. Anyone with a computer could be a content provider and distribute ideas, opinions, and artistic _expression across the globe.

On another bright note advantage, freedom on the Internet has yielded tremendous individual, corporate and national financial gain. Small businesses have been able to compete more effectively with larger ones, thus spurring economic growth.

Interestingly, the notion of Net neutrality is currently transcending politics. Recently, two groups from opposite ends of the political spectrum combined forces on the issue. The Christian Coalition and MoveOn.org both endorsed legislation that would ensure that Internet content retains its equal footing.

Phone and cable companies, though, which want to make decisions concerning what content gets on the Internet, claim to be preserving the free market. But in reality what has been set up is a highly distorted market, with the government regulatory action creating a cable and phone company duopoly.

Still, the government is the arbiter of what can and cannot be done by these companies so it has the capacity to impose rules that include the perpetuation of Net neutrality.

The Senate has been negotiating Net neutrality legislation in the aftermath of the House's refusal to pass a proposed neutrality amendment to the telecommunications bill, the same legislation that lets phone companies enter the cable TV business.

If freedom on the Internet is to be preserved, it must be done with as little government involvement as possible. Unfortunately, current bills have looked to the FCC to enforce the neutrality provisions. Based on the FCC's track record, the innovation-suppressing agency is far from the ideal candidate to preserve neutrality.

It would be far better for the final bill to follow the antitrust model and be enforced by the courts rather than the highly flawed FCC.

Cutting to the chase, Net neutrality equals net freedom.

The Left Coast Report says take up your digital arms and fight hard for this one.

George Carlin Disappoints Coulter Haters

"Ann Coulter and George Carlin are on the show tonight. That's the last time we have eharmony.com pick our guests," Jay Leno quipped at the beginning of his broadcast.

Harmony is just what viewers saw on the show, and that made libs very unhappy. Apparently, they were expecting comedian George Carlin to take fellow guest Ann Coulter apart with his patented wit.

The Associated Press had essentially set up expectations by describing Coulter as an "the acid-tongued conservative" while Carlin was heralded as a "quick-witted, antiestablishment comedian."

But Carlin was a classy, cordial gentleman and treated Coulter with respect. The only joke he launched came as he gave his Leno-adjoining seat up for Coulter.

"I never thought Ann Coulter would make me move to the right," Carlin cracked.

This did not please the TV Squad blog, which groused, "You would think that George Carlin, one of the most brilliant comedic minds around and someone who would give Ann Coulter a run for her money, would get in on the conversation."

The Web site called the show "a complete waste of time" and asked, "Where was the Coulter clash?"

Other mainstream media outlets took potshots as well.

Variety called Coulter "the ice princess of arch-conservatism" and described Carlin as "a crown prince of '60s iconoclasm."

Coulter was chastised for being "bent on making the most of her exposure via the mainstream media she professes to loathe."

"Whether calculated or not, the thin, tall, blonde Coulter comes across as a brainy Paris Hilton. And like Hilton, she appears impervious to criticism and single-minded in her pursuit of self-promotion," the Variety piece read.

A Los Angeles Times blog called Coulter "weirdly school-girlish," adding that "her evident pleasure in herself is in direct proportion to the revulsion she occasions in others."

Expressing dismay at Carlin's civility, the site blogged, "We sat through an entire 'Tonight Show' for this?"

The Left Coast Report says I read through a whole L.A. Times blog for this?

Turn and Look

Shining a spotlight on Germany’s shame.
By Donna M. Hughes

Two Russian women, Masha and Irina, have come forward to tell their stories of being trafficked into prostitution in Germany.

Both women are educated professionals: Masha is a lawyer; Irina is an engineer and an accountant. Both left Russia for Germany with the promise of employment as either a housekeeper or waitress. Masha was seeking an opportunity to see the world and learn a new language; Irina was in debt and wanted a better paying job.

Their stories are typical trafficking stories: When they arrived in Germany, they were met by members of the Russian mafia; their passports were taken away; and they were informed that the jobs they expected didn’t exist and they would be prostitutes instead. They were told it was futile to resist and that the police would not help them because the pimps worked under police protection.

Irina resisted and was beaten. She was shown photographs of dead, mutilated women who tried to go to the police. The mafia had locations where thugs beat and sometimes killed uncooperative women. Irina fearfully decided to cooperate and earn enough money to pay off the debt the Russian mafia claimed she owed. Masha also decided to be compliant, going so far as to feign disappointment when a man chose another woman for sex, while she waited for an opportunity to escape.

The pimps sent Masha and three other Russian women to a bar called “Savoy” near Bielefeld, Germany. They learned they were replacements for Russian women who had been murdered there. When they arrived they found the clothes, underwear, and purses of the murdered women.

Masha was trafficked to Germany before prostitution was legalized in 2002, and police were still carrying out raids. Masha was twice arrested in police raids. But instead of being rescued and provided with services, the police released her onto the street with no money and no references for shelters or services. The first time, she and the other women naively returned to the bar to pick-up their belongings. The Russian mafia was immediately tipped off about their return. They were recaptured and Masha was sold to another pimp. The second club was raided and again she was detained by police. And once again, she was released with no assistance, shelter, or information. She ended up back under the control of a pimp.

German police had two opportunities to identify Masha as a victim of trafficking and failed both times. Since the legalization of prostitution, police have fewer reasons to investigate brothels, and victims have fewer opportunities to receive assistance.

After being sold twice, Masha’s mental health deteriorated. She stopped eating and threatened to commit suicide by jumping from a fourth-floor window. The pimp, fearing that such an incident would draw attention to his operation, and probably realizing that her usefulness to him was over, sent her back to Russia.

Irina was trafficked to Germany after prostitution was legalized, and she was placed in a legal brothel in Breman. Irina said that women in the legal brothel were trafficked and did not have access to their documents — either the original ones or the fake ones the mafia charged them for. The pimps regularly reminded the women that they knew where their families lived and would kill their children if they tried to escape.

In the club where Irina was held, she observed women being sold to different pimps destined for Belgium and the Netherlands, where prostitution is legal. Eventually, she was sent to a club called “Diplomat” in the Netherlands. While there she observed the pimps working with the Russian mafia regularly to supply women to the brothels. During the move, 2,000 euros were added to her debt for a fake Lithuanian passport. She said, “I saw right away that no matter how many men there were, I could never repay the debts.”

Irina decided to escape. Another Russian woman, Tatiana, who was being held captive by threat of harm to her two-year-old son back in Russia, helped her by stealing her fake passport from the pimps. Irina fled. She later learned that Tatiana was murdered for helping her escape.

Irina was assisted by local people, but the Russian mafia continued to track her, threatening to kill her. She was moved from place to place, and worked as a hostess and waitress, but no longer forced into prostitution. After hiding in a garage for two weeks, she decided to go to the police. At the Dutch police station, she was immediately arrested for having a false passport. Although she gave the Dutch police all the information she had about the Russian traffickers, they continued to treat her as the criminal. Over the course of two years, she moved from a jail, to a shelter, back to prison for failure to pay the fine for having a fake passport. In frustration, she went on a hunger strike in prison. They put her in solitary confinement with only a mattress on the floor. They never arrested the traffickers or pimps.

Finally, Irina’s daughter contacted the Angel Coalition, an anti-trafficking coalition and service provider in Russia, which assisted her in getting out of prison. The police released her and refused to help her get to the Russian consulate.

On June 14, Masha and Irina testified about their experiences being trafficked to Germany before the U.S. House International Relations Committee. While the women were testifying a representative from the German embassy distributed a statement to the press defending their efforts to combat trafficking.

Irina concluded, “I did not commit any crime in those countries and I was put in prison [in the Netherlands] for absolutely nothing. The people who involved me in that situation are still free and continue to traffic women under government cover.” Irina returned to Russia several months ago and is still trying to cope with the terrible things she went through in Germany and the Netherlands.

Masha summed up her experience by saying, “It seem like we Russian women are placed in impossible economic conditions and are not needed by our own country. In other countries, we are spit on as prostitutes when we are really victims. Ten years have passed since I was trafficked, but the situation has still not changed. Is the German government really not aware of what is happening in their country? Or are they happy to profit from our suffering?”

Germany’s legal sex industry is estimated to make $18 billion annually. Little of this money goes to the mostly foreign women who are exploited by the pimps and city governments. The government acknowledges that there are 400,000 women in prostitution in Germany. The German Women’s Council estimated that an additional 40,000 women would be brought into Germany to “service” the male fans attending the World Cup. Although the exact number is impossible to know, a ten-percent increase is not an unreasonable estimate.

Following international outrage over city-government involvement in setting up brothels and accommodating the pimps for the World Cup games, the German police claim they are carrying out checks of documents in brothels, but are not finding an increase in trafficking.

Yet, at the end of May, police in Latvia arrested a man suspected of selling women to German brothels. Six women were sent to five different brothels. The trafficker was paying $130 for each woman delivered to him. He then received $520 for each woman from the German brothel. They were recruiting women among known prostitutes, which makes it harder to prove they are victims of trafficking, because people often claim “they knew what they were getting into.”

And now that the World Cup games are underway, Solowodi, the Catholic charity in Berlin, says they have already received calls from victims, and clinics are putting them in touch with trafficked victims.

The spotlight is on Germany and its policy of “sex work.” Over the next few weeks and months, we will learn more about what happens to women in the prostitution industry there. I predict that the 2006 World Cup in Germany will be a turning point for the global abolitionist movement, as people, including those who truly thought that legalization was better for women, are faced with the degrading monster they have created.

Blind Leading Nobody

And they wonder why…
By Catherine Seipp

No offense to Jim Lehrer and Bed Bradlee, but watching these two elderly talking heads discuss the state of mainstream media on the new PBS special Free Speech (premiered June 19) isn’t exactly reassuring. Not if, like me, you’re a journalist worried about declining circulation and shrinking audiences.

Is the solution, as Bradlee suggests it might be, just to come up with better stories? Because I don’t think that addresses the stickier problem of younger readers simply abandoning mass media in favor of opinionated niche outlets like blogs or The Daily Show or Fox News. Since transparency is one of journalism’s core values, it’s hard for me to blame those who prefer their media bias served straight up instead of hidden in a piece of cheese, like a dog’s vitamin.

Granted, readers sometimes have only the dimmest comprehension of the difference between an opinion they don’t happen to agree with and some lunatic’s unpublishable ravings. A year or so ago, the Los Angeles Times actually began running opinions on its op-ed page that dissent from the liberal party line, and this can flummox loyal subscribers. “Why does the Times provide a forum for such misguided commentary?” asked a typical clueless letter-to-the-editor about one such piece.

Even so, Bradlee’s notion that journalists should refrain from displaying any political opinion except by voting also seems unrealistic. No marching in political rallies even if you’re on an unrelated beat like sports, the venerated former Washington Post editor tells Lehrer; no accepting paid speaking engagements from any organization other than a non-profit — “Just stay out of it!” Presumably the problem is then solved.

But what about the larger issue of stories that don’t get covered at all because of the unexamined assumptions of those who decide even counts as news? “We’re in the business of telling you what happened in the last 24 hours,” Bradlee says to Lehrer, explaining why it’s not really fair to blame journalists as messengers. This week, though, the Los Angeles Times (to its credit) ran an op-ed by Frank Schaeffer suggesting that “what happened” isn’t quite so cut and dried.

Schaeffer, who has a son in the Marines and is co-author of the book AWOL: The Unexcused Absence of America’s Upper Classes from the Military — and How It Hurts Our Country, makes a pretty unassailable point in his Times piece. He writes that he has no beef with the reporting on Haditha, but adds,

What bothers me is that I haven't seen one recent story dedicated to the heroism of our troops given such consistent prominence in The Times or other leading papers [as the Haditha story.] Nor have I read a front-page headline about a military medal ceremony and the story behind it, although every year I see front-page treatment in The Times of who wins the Oscars.

Apparently some awards are more equal than others — say, for being a supporting actress in a forgettable movie rather than risking one's life to save a group of Iraqi children.

This sort of thing hasn’t gone unnoticed, and I suspect it’s a real factor in declining readership as well as the public’s mistrust of journalists. In my own little corner of the media world, one of my regular readers is an Army major and blogger who returned from Iraq a few months ago. He made a similar point to Schaeffer’s the other day. After wondering why it’s okay for American reporters to applaud at good news about safe coal miners but not at the death in wartime of Zarqawi (presumably the enemy of American journalists as well as other Americans) he noted:

The misconduct at Abu Ghraib was repugnant, but why weren't the court martial trials of the perpetrators and their sentences covered? Why is it that everyone knows about the scandal but not the army's response, which entailed a detailed investigation and numerous relief for cause actions and jail terms?

These are reasonable questions. For mainstream media gatekeepers to protest in response that they simply report the news really doesn’t seem like much of an answer, especially considering their long history of proudly promoting diversity both in and out of the newsroom. USA Today founder Al Neuharth, for instance, famously insisted that the paper try to feature pictures of minorities on the front page every day, above the fold. Why is that somehow a worthy and achievable goal, but finding and writing about contemporary versions of Audie Murphy is not?

Winning Is Not an Option

Chasing the infidel American crusaders out of Iraq is the jackpot. And that is precisely what the Democrats are for.
By Jonah Goldberg

Let me get this straight. For a couple of years now Democrats have increasingly demanded that America get out of Iraq now, soon or by a date certain. The Murtha bug-out chorus says “it’s not our fight,” “let the Iraqis handle it,” “let’s stay out of a civil war,” and, “we can’t win.”

I think I have that right.

So on Thursday the Washington Post ran a front-page story on how the democratically elected Iraqi government is considering offering amnesty for some insurgents as part of a larger “national reconciliation plan.”

In response, the Democratic leadership in Congress went ass over tea kettle.

“The mere idea that this proposal may go forward is an insult to the brave men and women who have died in the name of Iraqi freedom,” shrieked Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez a co-sponsor of the resolution demanding that the amnesty plan be immediately quashed, thundered: “We ask you Prime Minister Maliki, are you willing to have ‘reconciliation’ on the pool of American blood that has been spilled to give your people and your country a chance for freedom?” He continued: “We reject that notion and are outraged that the sacrifice of American troops and the American people could be so devalued.”

Florida Senator Bill Nelson says “Terrorists and insurgents shouldn’t be rewarded for killing American soldiers.” And, Chuck Schumer in a pitch perfect pose of deep regret and sadness lamented that insurgents were getting a “get out of jail free card.”

This is repugnant. Shame on them.

What on earth do these people think cutting and running from Iraq means? When they say, “it’s not our fight” and “it’s a civil war,” how do they envision this non-American conflict to be resolved after we depart?

If America left Iraq tomorrow and then the Iraqi government granted amnesty the day after that, would these sanctimonious champions of military honor protest? I doubt it.

Do they really think that a negotiated peace to this civil war will involve every single Sunni insurgent being put on trial? Of course not. Indeed, if America bugged out and the factions came to just such an understanding on their own, John Murtha would jump up and down shouting “I told you so!” Nancy Pelosi would smirkingly gloat “See? America was a hindrance to peace!”

Look: Bugging out of Iraq is the greatest amnesty possible because it’s the only way the men who’ve shed American blood can not only get off scot-free but actually win the war. But that is precisely what Democrats want to do. These guys talk about how the sacrifices of American troops would be “devalued” by amnesty, but they see no devaluation of such sacrifice in surrender. They say they don’t want to “reward” those who spilled American blood through amnesty. But amnesty is the consolation prize. It is the set of steak knives and coupon to Chuck E. Cheese’s of rewards. Chasing the infidel American crusaders out of Iraq is the jackpot. And that is precisely what the Democrats are for.

This sanctimony is so dishonest it stews the bowels. Most of these Democrats have denounced America’s decision to disband the Iraqi military after the toppling of Saddam. Those Iraqis fired on Americans and now they comprise the bulk of the insurgents. These Democrats wanted to keep many, if not most, of the same fighters in uniform and give them the color of authority in Iraq — not send them off to be ditch diggers and taxi drivers under some amnesty plan. They wanted them to command troops!

Now, it turns out that the story was wrong and the Iraqi government isn’t actually moving ahead with an amnesty plan. I think that’s for the good. But I don’t think America would be wise to tell the Iraqi government they can’t ever find a solution to this conflict that lets insurgents off the hook at all. Wars against insurgencies always involve cooptation. Telling the insurgents - as opposed to the foreign fighters who should be hung from the nearest lamppost — that it’s death or victory is not a path to peace.

The details are obviously complicated. The normal rules of war don’t fully apply, since the insurgents use terror tactics, don’t wear uniforms, etc. But, we didn’t ask that every German be put on trial who had American blood on his hands after World War II and we didn’t ask that every North Vietnamese soldier face a tribunal.

Oh wait, that’s because we bugged out, just like the Democrats want to now.

The Democrats say we can’t win. They also say we can’t find a political solution. In other words, it seems their message to American troops is “surrender or fight to the death.” Winning is not an option.

Coulter's Murtha 'Fragging' Comment Draws Fire

Following the controversy created by her new book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," Ann Coulter has stirred up new outrage with a comment about outspoken anti-Iraq war Congressman John Murtha.

In an e-mail interview with John Hawkins at the Right Wing News Web site, Coulter was asked for comments on several prominent individuals. When the name of Pennsylvania Democrat and ex-Marine Murtha came up, Coulter remarked: "The reason soldiers invented ‘fragging.'"

"Fragging" became a familiar term during the Vietnam War and refers to soldiers trying to kill their own officers.

Coulter's comment made headlines on the Editor & Publisher web site. Editor & Publisher is a newspaper industry publication.

The comment drew a sharp rebuke from conservative Mike Krempasky, who called it "disgusting," according to Editor & Publisher.


Coulter was already under fire from some - including Hillary Clinton - for attacking the four New Jersey widows who pushed for an independent commission to investigate the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks that killed their husbands. In her book, Coulter accused the women of "reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis."

In "Godless," Coulter maintains that liberalism contains all the attributes of what is generally known as "religion."

United Nations ‘Army’ Proposed

Crisis management experts are calling for the creation of a "United Nations army” – an international rapid reaction force that could be deployed within 48 hours to intervene in emergency situations around the globe.

Composed of up to 15,000 military, police and civilian staff, including medics, the proposed force would be recruited from professionals hired by the U.N. from many countries, and based at designated U.N. sites.

Its actions would be authorized by the U.N. Security Council, according to the Toronto Star.

"It's not a new idea, but it has now come into its own," said Peter Langille of University of Western Ontario, one of the major contributors to the book "A United Nations Emergency Peace Service: To Prevent Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity,” which will be presented at the U.N. on Friday.

"With countries moving away from U.N. peacekeeping, and troops overstretched in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, (the rapid reaction force) has new appeal."

The idea of a U.N. emergency force was first given serious thought in 1994, in the aftermath of the Rwanda genocide. But at that time, the U.S. was concerned that the force would become an out-of-control "U.N. army," and developing countries felt threatened by what they feared could be an interventionist force directed by the West.

But University of Notre Dame political scientist Robert Johansen, the book's chief writer, says a U.N. force could help prevent horrendous conflict such as the Rwanda genocide and the current crisis in Darfur.

"With an independent force at their disposal, and no obligation to send in their own troops, the Security Council's often squabbling members would have less reason to drag out debates about when to intervene in crises,” the Star reports.

The new emergency force could cost $2 billion to establish, less than the wars that have plagued Africa and Asia in recent years. "A U.N. agency would for the first time in history offer a rapid, comprehensive, internationally legitimate response to crisis, enabling it to save hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of dollars through early and often preventive action," the book states.

But experts say there are serious obstacles to overcome before the rapid reaction force could be created.

"The concept is sound but it would depend on who was willing to join up and ante up," says Canadian Col. Pat Strogan, vice-president of the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre.

"If there weren't reluctance on the part of countries to contribute in the past, it might have taken root by now."

Ann Coulter Wows Leno Audience

Liberals may hate Ann Coulter, but the folks in the audience of Jay Leno’s "Tonight Show” roared their approval of the controversial author when she was introduced on Wednesday night.

Asked by Leno to explain all the controversy surrounding her No. 1 best-selling book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," Coulter said: "Well, I wrote a book and liberals were hysterical. Every time I write a book liberals are hysterical. It happens all the time.”

Noting that Leno had joked about her the night before, saying that like the Wicked Witch in "The Wizard of Oz” she had a house fall on her as a result of her book, Ann countered: "I just dropped my house on the mainstream media.” The audience cheered.

Ann explained that before the book came out she gave it to her friends, including liberals, and not one of them complained about her remarks about the so-called Jersey Girls.

"Not my friends, not my editors, not the lawyers and not the liberals, pulled out the chapter on the Jersey Girls,” she said. Coulter has drawn fire from some – including Hillary Clinton – for attacking the four New Jersey widows who pushed for an independent commission to investigate the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks that killed their husbands. Coulter accused the women of "reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis.”

Commenting on Leno’s complaint that political discourse nowadays is so nasty, Coulter said: "We hear this all the time, about how civil things were back when there were only three TV stations” and nobody could talk back to the liberals.

Now, she said, there has suddenly been an alleged "disruption of civility” only because conservatives can talk back thanks to talk radio, the Internet and Fox News.

Asked if she is hurt by liberal attacks on her, Coulter said she wears them "as a badge of honor.” She added that she was surprised that liberals have failed to object to being called "Godless,” and have concentrated their fire on one small part of one chapter, when she criticized the Jersey Girls.

The much anticipated fireworks between Coulter and acid-tongued comedian George Carlin never came off, with Carlin sitting beside Ann smiling and saying nothing throughout her conversation with Leno except to note that he had to "move to the right” to allow Ann to sit beside her host.

During her 8 1/2 minutes on stage, Ann was interrupted by vigorous applause time and again.

Rice: Debate 'Gay Marriage' With Respect

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Wednesday urged respect and sensitivity in the debate over gay marriage, but ducked a question about her own views on the question.

"This is an issue that can be debated and can be discussed in our country with respect for every human being," Rice told a newspaper interviewer.

"When we get into difficult debates about social policy, we get into difficult debates that touch people's lives, the only thing that I ask is that Americans do it with a kind of sensitivity that real individuals and real human beings are involved here."

The Senate rejected a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage by a wide margin last week. It was a defeat for President Bush and other Republicans who hope the issue will rally GOP voters for the November elections. The amendment could be brought up again.

Asked for her opinion of the amendment, Rice told The News & Record of Greensboro, N.C., "This is not my area of expertise or, frankly, my area of concentration at this point."

Rice spoke following an address to the Southern Baptist Convention. The newly chosen president of the nation's largest Protestant denomination opposes gay marriage, as does Bush.

"The union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution," Bush said before the Senate vote. "Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them. And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure."

Forty-five of the 50 states have acted to define traditional marriage in ways that would ban same-sex marriage - 19 with state constitutional amendments and 26 with statutes.

The proposed federal amendment would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages. After approval by Congress, it would have to be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures.

Retired Wis. Farmer Plans Hitler Memorial

A retired farmer who says he served in the German army in World War II is turning part of his land into a battleground of sorts with his memorial to a leader he claims is misunderstood, Adolf Hitler.

Ted Junker, 87, plans a grand opening June 25 and says his goal is to clear up inaccuracies about the war and Hitler's role in it.

In other words, he doesn't accept that Hitler was to blame for starting the war in which 50 million people died, including some 6 million Jewish victims of the Holocaust.

"I like the U.S. I can't understand why people don't know the truth. This is for understanding, not hate," Junker said.

"I'd say he's full of bull," said the Rev. John Donnelly, a professor of history at Marquette University.

"I'm sure he looks back and wants to say that he was not serving a super evil man, the most evil man in (the 20th century)," Donnelly said. "He's looking for some kind of personal sense of redemption, and I don't think he can be taken seriously at all."

Kathy Heilbronner, assistant director of the Milwaukee Jewish Council for Community Relations, described Junker as a classic Holocaust denier.

FEMA funds spent on divorce, sex change

Houston divorce lawyer Mark Lipkin says he can't recall anyone paying for his services with a FEMA debit card, but congressional investigators say one of his clients did just that.

The $1,000 payment was just one example cited in an audit that concluded that up to $1.4 billion — perhaps as much as 16 percent of the billions of dollars in assistance expended after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita — was spent for bogus reasons.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency also was hoodwinked to pay for season football tickets, a tropical vacation and a sex change operation, the audit found. Prison inmates, a supposed victim who used a New Orleans cemetery for a home address and a person who spent 70 days at a Hawaiian hotel all were able to get taxpayer help, according to evidence that gives a new black eye to the nation's disaster relief agency.

"I do Katrina victims all the time," Lipkin, the divorce attorney, told The Associated Press. "I didn't know anybody did that with me. I don't think it's right, obviously."

Government Accountability Office officials were testifying before a House committee Wednesday on their findings.

Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, chairman of the subcommittee overseeing an investigation of post-hurricane aid, called the bogus spending "an assault on the American taxpayer."

"Prosecutors from the federal level down should be looking at prosecuting these crimes and putting the criminals who committed them in jail for a long time," he said.

To dramatize the problem, investigators provided lawmakers with a copy of a $2,358 U.S. Treasury check for rental assistance that an undercover agent received using a bogus address. The money was paid even after FEMA learned from its inspector that the undercover applicant did not live at the address.

FEMA spokesman Aaron Walker said Tuesday that the agency, already criticized for a poor response to Katrina, makes its highest priority during a disaster "to get help quickly to those in desperate need of our assistance."

"Even as we put victims first, we take very seriously our responsibility to be outstanding stewards of taxpayer dollars, and we are careful to make sure that funds are distributed appropriately," Walker said.

FEMA said it has identified more than 1,500 cases of potential fraud after Katrina and Rita and has referred those cases to the Homeland Security Department's inspector general. The agency said it has identified $16.8 million in improperly awarded disaster relief money and has started efforts to collect the money.

The GAO said it was 95 percent confident that improper and potentially fraudulent payments were much higher — between $600 million and $1.4 billion.

The investigative agency said it found people lodged in hotels often were paid twice, since FEMA gave them individual rental assistance and paid hotels directly. FEMA paid California hotels $8,000 to house one individual — the same person who received three rental assistance payments for both disasters.

In another instance, FEMA paid an individual $2,358 in rental assistance, while at the same time paying about $8,000 for the same person to stay 70 nights at more than $100 per night in a Hawaii hotel.

FEMA also could not establish that 750 debit cards worth $1.5 million even went to Katrina victims, the auditors said.

Among the items purchased with the cards:

_An all-inclusive, one-week Caribbean vacation in the Punta Cana resort in the Dominican Republic.

_Five season tickets to New Orleans Saints professional football games.

_Adult erotica products in Houston and "Girls Gone Wild" videos in Santa Monica, Calif.

_Dom Perignon champagne and other alcoholic beverages in San Antonio.

"Our forensic audit and investigative work showed that improper and potentially fraudulent payments occurred mainly because FEMA did not validate the identity of the registrant, the physical location of the damaged address, and ownership and occupancy of all registrants at the time of registration," GAO officials said.

FEMA paid millions of dollars to more than 1,000 registrants who used names and Social Security numbers belonging to state and federal prisoners for expedited housing assistance. The inmates were in Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia and Florida.

FEMA made about $5.3 million in payments to registrants who provided a post office box as their damaged residence, including one who got $2,748 for listing an Alabama post office box as the damaged property.

The GAO told of an individual who used 13 different Social Security numbers — including the person's own — to receive $139,000 in payments on 13 separate registrations for aid. All the payments were sent to a single address.

Bill Clinton: U.S. Should Not Pull Out of Iraq

Former President Bill Clinton has told Florida Democrats that the U.S. should not withdraw from Iraq until the political situation there is stabilized.

"The representative government in Iraq is a hopeful sign,” Clinton said at a fundraiser for the Florida Democratic party in Orlando on Monday.

"But we need to stay there long enough for the politics to get worked out. If we withdrew tomorrow, that government couldn’t survive.”

Clinton said he opposed the original decision to invade Iraq before military operations in Afghanistan were completed, but warned that more terrorists could emerge from Iraq without a U.S. military presence there.

Democrats at the event gave his position on Iraq a lukewarm reception, Florida Today reports.

Clinton didn’t mention his wife Hillary’s political future.

Kerry: ‘I Was Wrong' On Iraq

This article was written by Nathan Burchfiel, CNSNews.com

U.S. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts on Tuesday told an audience at the liberal Take Back America conference that he was sorry for voting to authorize the war in Iraq, calling the entire mission "a mistake."

"We were misled, we were given evidence that was not true," Kerry said. "It was wrong, and I was wrong to vote [for it]."

Kerry, who led an unsuccessful bid for the presidency in 2004, said it was necessary to admit mistakes because "you cannot change the future if you"re not honest about the past." He criticized supporters of the war, who label anti-war activists and politicians as unpatriotic and pessimistic.

"The true pessimists are those who will not accept that America"s strength depends on our credibility at home and around the world," Kerry said. "The true pessimists are those who do not understand that valuing our principles is critical to our national security and it is as critical to our national security as our military power itself."

He said questioning the war and fighting in it are "two sides of the very same patriotic coin" and compared the modern anti-war movement to the anti-war movement in the Vietnam War. Kerry, who served in Vietnam, returned to the United States and offered testimony to Congress, opposing the war and describing horrific war crimes he said soldiers committed there.

He said opposing the war is "a right and an obligation" because it was "founded on a lie [and] can never be true to America"s character."

Kerry also lashed out at war supporters who accuse anti-war activists of not supporting the troops. "The best way to support the troops is to oppose a course that destroys their lives," he said.

Kerry renewed his call for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq, saying that he supports setting a timetable for the removal in Iraq that is not "cut and run." Without saying when he would like troops removed from the war zone, Kerry said he believes "we need a hard and fast deadline."

Kerry made his comments during a speech at the annual Take Back America conference in the nation's capital. Organized by the liberal Campaign for America"s Future, the conference has also feature U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton and U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. U.S. Sens. Russ Feingold and Barack Obama are scheduled to appear Wednesday.

A spokesman for the Republican National Committee was not immediately available for reaction to Kerry's comments.

Jay Leno to Host Ann Coulter and George Carlin

"Tonight" host Jay Leno might want to consider wearing referee stripes on Wednesday's show when Ann Coulter and George Carlin are his guests.

Coulter, the acid-tongued conservative with a new book out, and Carlin, the quick-witted, antiestablishment comedian who's in the voice cast for the new animated film "Cars," were booked at separate times for the NBC late-nighter, a spokeswoman said Monday.

But the duo's meeting could produce serious fireworks for "Tonight," which usually limits its political fodder to Leno's bipartisan monologue jokes.

Coulter, author of "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," has drawn fire for attacking the four New Jersey widows who pushed for an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 World Trade Center attacks in which their husbands died.

In her book, Coulter accuses the women of "reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."

An appearance by Coulter on another NBC series, "Today," led to a prickly exchange with host Matt Lauer over her comments on the widows.

Also scheduled for "Tonight" Wednesday is Scottish singer and songwriter KT Tunstall.

American Medical Association Backs Teen Sex Guides

America's largest organization of physicians, the American Medical Association, is offering teenagers new guides that give explicit advice on sex.

In two new books "Girl's Guide to Becoming a Teen" and "Boy's Guide to Becoming a Teen," the AMA tells kids that masturbation is healthy, that penis size doesn't matter, that gay sex is normal and oral sex is really sex.

The AMA spells out advice to help youths prepare for the key teen transition years bridging childhood to adulthood.

The controversial soft-cover AMA books, priced at $12.95, are available at bookstores and through the AMA's Web site.

"This comprehensive, reliable guide to a topic both parents and teachers sometimes have difficulty discussing with children, is presented in a simple, easy-to-read format with fun two-color layout and illustrations," the AMA says of the books.

The New York Post reports that the medical organization has no plans to market the books to school systems.

Among the books' chapter headings are such titles as "Welcome to Puberty," "Your Reproductive System - Inside and Out," "Erections, Wet Dreams and Masturbation" and "What About Sex," while other chapters deal with health, hygiene, dieting, feelings, and relationships. The books reassure teenaged girls that they should not be worried about their bodily features including their height, weight, facial acne and sexual organs.

"It's easy to fall into the trap of comparing yourself to other girls," the authors say in the "Girl's Guide," adding, "nobody has a perfect body, or face, or hair." The guide discusses girls' breasts: "It's best to accept your breasts the way they are, even if you think they are too small or too big or you don't like the shape. Keep in mind that the size and shape of your breasts have nothing to do with their function," the AMA guide says.

Other advice given teens includes:
Boys needn't be ashamed of the size of their penis. "It's important to know that size has nothing to do with how your penis functions," the authors said.
Masturbation is OK as long as it's done privately and doesn't become an obsession.

"Masturbation is a normal, healthy way to explore your sexual feelings," the boy's book reveals, but don't "masturbate so much that you don't have time for other things, like spending time with your friends, or enjoying your hobbies."

There's nothing unusual about being attracted to someone of the same sex. "People can be attracted to different people at different times in their life. You may find that you're only interested in boys, only interested in girls, or somewhere in between," the authors claim.

And the book even has a little advice for former President Bill Clinton. During his affair with intern Monica Lewinsky, Clinton claimed that oral sex was really not sex.

"Believe it or not, oral sex is really sex," the AMA book states bluntly.

Without explaining what his organization has to do with the sex lives of teens aside from the medical aspects, the AMA's president, J. Edward Hill, M.D., said "These books are tremendous resources for preteens and parents of preteens who are looking for reliable medical information to help their children through puberty."

Last year Hill expressed his and the AMA's opposition to the administration's abstinence only education policy.

The medical organization has veered into other controversial social issues as well. In recent years, the AMA has become an advocate of gun control, claiming that such efforts could reduce gun-related injuries.

Hillary Clinton's Detective Investigating John Spencer

New York Republican Senate hopeful John Spencer is accusing Sen. Hillary Clinton of mounting a dirty-tricks campaign to torpedo his candidacy, charging that a private detective agency employed by the Clintons during impeachment is now digging into his private life.

Citing campaign finance records, team Spencer says K.T. McFarland, his little known Republican challenger who vows to force him into a primary run-off, paid $12,000 to Investigative Group International. The detective agency was headed up by notorious private eye Terry Lenzner during the 1990s when it helped dig dirt on the Clintons' enemies.

Last week, after the New York State GOP nominated Spencer to challenge Mrs. Clinton, Republican chairman Stephen Minarik urged McFarland to drop her challenge for the sake of party unity.

But McFarland refused to yield, vowing instead to continue a primary challenge that Spencer says will hobble his already difficult battle to unseat Mrs. Clinton.

After IGI went to work, McFarland campaign manager Ed Rollins began attacking Spencer's private life, alleging that he had an affair and two children with his chief of staff.

Just how was McFarland able to afford the pricey private eye? Donors to Hillary Clinton and other Democrats, it turns out, have suddenly decided to bankroll the Republican spoiler's campaign.

Naming names and offering dates of donations, Spencer's campaign web site says:

"Twenty donors to McFarland who gave her a total of $25,200 also gave $343,150 to the Democratic National Committee, $6,000 to Chuck Schumer and Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, $9,900 to Howard Dean, $4,000 to John Kerry and $6,910 to Hillary Clinton."

"A clear pattern has emerged whereby donors to McFarland are also big supporters of Senator Clinton, the DNC and other related left-wing entities," the Spencer campaign charges. "Is this another Clinton dirty trick?"

Fidel Castro: Zarqawi Killing a 'Barbarity'

President Fidel Castro called the U.S. airstrike that killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi a "barbarity," saying he should have been put on trial.

The United States acted as "judge and jury" against the leader of the al-Qaida in Iraq, Castro said late Friday.

"They bragged, they were practically drunk with happiness."

"The accused cannot just be eliminated," he told a literacy conference. "This barbarity cannot be done."

The U.S. military has said al-Zarqawi initially survived the dropping of two 500-pound bombs on his hide-out Wednesday, but died a short time later.

Castro said if Cuba used the same logic, it could bomb the United States to kill its No. 1 enemy, Luis Posada Carriles, who is being held in El Paso, Texas on immigration charges.

The communist government accuses the Cuban-born Posada of masterminding numerous violent attacks against the island, including the bombing of a Cuban airliner that killed 73 people in 1976. Posada denies involvement in the bombing of the plane.

Al Gore: Next Movie May Have Nude Scene

Al Gore jokes he's been getting a taste of the movie star treatment.

The former vice president was on the "Tonight" show Thursday night. Host Jay Leno asked about the reaction to Gore's documentary on global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth."

Gore says since he's been on the Hollywood A-list, he's had a huge feud with Lindsay Lohan. When Leno asked for details, Gore said Lohan "knows what she did." The line got a big laugh.

Gore also jokes he might consider a nude scene in his next movie if the script had integrity and it advanced the story.

On the serious side, Gore says he has no plans to run for president again. He says he's "been there and done that."

Grover Norquist: John McCain Flip-flops Too Much

Republican strategist Grover Norquist is blasting GOP presidential frontrunner John McCain, saying the Arizona maverick is a world-class flip-flopper when it comes to core Republican issues.

"What McCain has done is flip-flopped on the gun issue [and] on the tax issue," Norquist told ABC's "This Week." "He used to be a Reagan Republican on taxes. He's voted against every one of President Bush's tax cuts."

Norquist, who heads up Americans for Tax Reform, said the Arizona maverick has the same problem when it comes to environmental issues and campaign finance reform.

"He used to be a critic of [the] Kyoto [Accord], then he became a champion of Kyoto," Norquist told "This Week." "He used to have the correct policy opposing campaign finance reform before the Keating 5 scandal and then he became a champion of restricting First Amendment rights."

The influential GOP'er accused McCain of pandering for publicity, saying, "He's flip-flopped back and forth not because of where the American people are, but because of where the cameras are."

Norquist has been been feuding with McCain for years, and once referred to him as "the nut-job from Arizona." According to the New Republic, he's also described the Arizona GOP'er "a gun-grabbing, tax-increasing Bolshevik" who is "completely unstable."

McCain aide Mark Salter responded to the barbs by saying, "Grover couldn't be any closer to [disgraced lobbyist Jack] Abramoff if they moved to Massachusetts and got married."

Mormons May Desert GOP over Romney

If Republicans reject Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney as a presidential candidate in 2008 largely because of his Mormon faith, many Mormons could abandon the GOP, political observers believe.

Followers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have overwhelmingly supported the Republican Party during the past three decades. But if GOP conservatives - especially evangelicals in the South - spurn him, Mormons might stay home from the polls, leave the Republican Party for independent status - or even become Democrats.

"I think that's a real possibility," Charles Reagan Wilson, director of the University of Mississippi's Center for the Study of Southern Culture, told the Salt Lake Tribune.

"To feel that kind of rejection from the national party they have allied with, that could well lead to some reassessment of the party."

Romney hasn't yet officially declared that he will run for president, but he has been traveling around the country meeting with Republican groups and distributing money to local candidates, "all preparatory moves for chasing the White House," the Tribune reports.

"But the issue of his religion continually dogs Romney, and some observers predict a Mormon could never be elected president."

A 1999 poll found that 17 percent of Americans would not vote for a Mormon. That sentiment is most prevalent in the South, where some evangelical groups consider the faith a cult.

Columnist Robert Novak, writing in April, said: "Prominent, respectable Evangelical Christians have told me, not for quotation, that millions of their co-religionists will not vote for Romney for president solely because he is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

Romney has said that he plans to give a speech similar to the one John F. Kennedy delivered when he insisted that if elected president he would not do the Pope's bidding.

"I think if I decided to go national that there will probably be a time when people will ask questions, and it will be about my faith, and I'll have the opportunity to talk about the role of religion in our society and in the leadership of our nation," he said in early May.

But Wayne Holland, chairman of the Utah Democratic Party, said Romney will face a powerful anti-Mormon bias in the South.

"I'm thinking [Mormons are] going to get pretty disgusted with what I believe they'll do to Romney," he told the Tribune.

If that happens, he added, some Mormons might finally start questioning whether the Republican Party isn't "too beholden to the group that just can't jibe with the LDS faith.".

Mexican Presidential Candidate Worries U.S.

Many political and business leaders in the U.S. are casting a wary eye on Mexico as a leftist candidate threatens to win July's presidential election.

But there is also concern that Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador will lose.

A decade ago, Obrador lost a closely contested state election, charged fraud and led mass demonstrations.

"U.S. policymakers are consulting with political players in Mexico to see if something similar could happen now," BusinessWeek reports.

James R. Jones, a former U.S. ambassador to Mexico, told BusinessWeek: "If there is serious disruption over the results, that's going to make Washington nervous, as well as the markets."

Obrador, the former mayor of Mexico City, is a populist who wants to create jobs through government spending.

In March, Rep. Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz., told several Mexican legislators that he had intelligence reports revealing that Obrador's party was receiving support from Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a firm ally of Fidel Castro, according to political strategist Dick Morris.

Obrador's chief opponent, Felipe Calderon, has a master's degree from Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government and says he would boost private initiative and create jobs by making Mexico attractive to private investors.

The two were running neck and neck in recent polls.

Rahm Emanuel Attacks Ann Coulter for Humiliated Hillary

Top Hillary Clinton aide-turned-congressman, Rahm Emanuel, is blasting conservative author Ann Coulter for her critique of four 9/11 widows in her new book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" - after Coulter humiliated Mrs. Clinton last week.

"While freedom of speech is one of the things that makes our country great, it also means we have to endure the words of a hatemonger like Ann Coulter," Emanuel complained on the House floor Thursday.

The Illinois Democrat stepped up to the plate after Coulter managed to silence Hillary, who had complained the day before that the writer's comments about the 9/11 widow's group, the Jersey Girls, were "vicious and mean-spirited."

The conservative firebrand fired back by suggesting that Mrs. Clinton should "have a talk with her husband" if she was worried about being mean to women - mentioning two of Mr. Clinton's accusers by name. Mrs. Clinton has been mum on the Coulter controversy ever since.

Enter Mr. Emanuel, who was part of Mrs. Clinton's crisis management team in the early days of the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

The one-time Hillary lieutenant told his House colleagues that Coulter was really little different from an al Qaeda terrorist, explaining: "The hate she spews is the same kind of hatred we are battling in the war on terror. As a country of thought and reason, I urge all of us to reject it."

Rep. Emanuel then demanded that the conservative writer apologize "to all of us who have lost our fellow citizens on 9/11."

Ann Coulter Banned in New Jersey?

Two New Jersey Democrats are pushing to have Ann Coulter's new book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," banned from all bookstores in their state because she criticized four 9/11 widows known as "the Jersey Girls."

In a joint press release issued Friday, New Jersey Assemblywomen Joan Quigley and Linda Stender say they want New Jersey retailers to "ban the sale of [Coulter's] book throughout the state."

"Ann Coulter's criticism of 9-11 widows, whose only desire since the attacks have been to repair their shattered lives and protect other families from the horrors they have experienced, is motivated purely by petty greed and hate," the two Democrats complained.

"Coulter's vicious characterizations and remarks are motivated by greed and her desire to sell books . . . She is a leech trying to turn a profit off perverting the suffering of others."

Quigley and Stender conclude:

"No one in New Jersey should buy this book and allow Ann Coulter to profit from her hate-mongering. We are asking New Jersey retailers statewide to stand with us and express their outrage by refusing to carry or sell copies of Coulter's book. Her hate-filled attacks on our 9-11 widows has no place on New Jersey bookshelves."

Tropical Storm Alberto forms in Gulf

Tropical Storm Alberto, the first named storm of the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season, developed Sunday from a poorly organized tropical depression in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, forecasters said.

The storm had maximum sustained winds near 45 mph — up 10 mph from early in the morning — and was expected to strengthen, according to the National Hurricane Center.

Alberto was located about 400 miles west of Key West and about 445 miles south-southwest of Apalachicola, and moving northwest near 9 mph, forecasters said.

It was expected to veer toward central or northern Florida, where it could make landfall early Tuesday, forecasters said. Boaters were warned to stay in port, as up to 8 inches of rain could fall over the Florida Keys and the state's Gulf Coast before Alberto nears the peninsula, according to the hurricane center.