Operatives Associated with Hezbollah Succeed in Crossing U.S. - Mexican Border

Want a reason to close the U.S. – Mexican border? How about FBI director Robert Mueller's statement this week to a House Appropriations subcommittee. According to Mueller, a group of operatives from a Hezbollah-organized group had succeeded, with the help of Hezbollah, in crossing the boarder from Mexico into the United States.

"This was an occasion in which Hezbollah operatives were assisting others with some association with Hezbollah in coming to the United States.”

Fortunately, according to Mueller, the FBI was successful in thwarting whatever intentions these operatives had (I don't think they were coming here with the intention of filling low-paying jobs that Americans won't do.)

Considering the fact that Hezbollah is a terrorist group believed to be responsible for the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in April 1983, the suicide truck bombing of U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in October 1983, the hijacking of TWA Flight 847 in 1985, various other bombings, and numerous kidnappings, the fact that they had succeeded in smuggling operatives with whom they were working into the United States should be particularly disturbing to all Americans. Yet this information has barely made a ripple of news. To my knowledge, this has not been on any major network news. Even on the internet, the only place I can find anything about this is on Newsmax.com .

Has anyone seen anything about this anywhere else? I suspect the mainstream media would not want to say anything about this because it would just be more ammunition for those who want to secure the border, but why isn't there more about this online – or have I just missed it?

Embrace America or Don't Come Here!

A group of high school students in California who walked out of class to protest House Bill 4437, which would reform federal immigration law, decided that it would be a good idea to put up the Mexican flag over the American flag and to fly the American flag upside down.

While immigrants should always be welcome in the United States, they need to come here legally, and they need to embrace American culture. Those who feel about America as the students who put up these flags evidently feel need to stay in their own country!

Holland, the U.K., and the U.S. - Have We Learned the Lessons of History?

On Monday, The Daily Standard published an article by Wesley J. Smith, which compares current Dutch infant euthanasia laws to the moral climate in pre-Nazi Germany.

In the article Smith quotes Italy's Parliamentary Affairs minister, Carlo Giovanardi, who commented during a radio debate: "Nazi legislation and Hitler's ideas are reemerging in Europe via Dutch euthanasia laws and the debate on how to kill ill children."

Even though the Dutch were incensed, Giovanardi 's comparison is a valid one. In 1920 Karl Binding, a German law professor and judge, collaborated with psychiatrist Alfred Hoche to write The Release of the Destruction of Life Devoid of Value. The authors suggested that those who are terminally ill, mentally ill, suffer retardation, or are deformed are "absolutely worthless human beings" who are "unworthy of life."

Over time, the ideas suggested by Binding and Hoche gained acceptance in German society. According to Smith, "by 1938 the German government received an outpouring of requests from the relatives of severely disabled infants and young children seeking permission to end their lives." Euthanizing these children was regarded as a way to relieve suffering and to save money that would have been spent on care for the disabled.

This pre-Nazi Germany euthanasia program provided a fertile ground for the onset of the Holocaust. For more on the progression from infant euthanasia to the Holocaust, read Smith's article .

For now, though, compare the cultural attitude of pre-Nazi Germany to that of the current cultural attitude in the Netherlands. In 2004 Groningen University Medical Center published the "Groningen Protocol," which made public the guidelines the hospital followed when it killed 22 disabled newborns between 1997 and 2004.

Smith points out that the Groningen Protocol, which is expected to become the basis for the official approval of Dutch pediatric euthanasia,

created categories of killable babies: infants "with no chance of survival," infants with a "poor prognosis and are dependent on intensive care," and "infants with a hopeless prognosis," including those "not depending on intensive medical treatment but for whom a very poor quality of life . . . is predicted." In other words, infant euthanasia is not restricted to dying babies but can be based on predicted serious disability.

The comparison of what is currently happening in the Netherlands to the euthanasia program of pre-Nazi Germany is haunting.

Now, further compare the pre-Nazi Germany euthanasia program to a current debate in the U.K. The U.K. Sunday Times reports that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists says that medical care for premature babies born before 25 weeks gestation is "bed blocking": using resources that could be used in the treatment of others who are deemed to have a better chance, not only of survival, but also of a healthy life.

The article states that there is "a growing view among child specialists that babies born under 25 weeks should be denied intensive care and allowed to die," a practice that "would shift Britain towards practice in Holland, the only European country that accepts such babies should die."

Remember the justification for the German euthanasia program, the one that said that euthanizing children would not only relieve suffering but would also save money that would otherwise have to be spent on care for the disabled? Well, here is what the Sunday Times article said about the cost of caring for premature babies.

The cost of treating very premature babies is high. A neonatal intensive care bed costs about £1,000 a day and very premature babies can require intensive care for four months.

Research to be presented at the Royal College of Paediatrics conference shows babies born at 25 weeks or under cost almost three times as much to educate by the time they reach the age of six as those born at full term.

Professor Sir Alan Craft, president of the Royal College of Paediatrics, said: “Many paediatricians would be in favour of adopting the Dutch model of no active intervention for these very little babies. The vast majority of children born at this gestation who do survive have significant disabilities. There is a lifetime cost and that needs to be taken into the equation when society tries to decide whether it wants to intervene.”

So, it's not just that these premature babies take space at the hospital and drain resources that could be used for other patients; they may also be a burden on society as they go through life. So what is the answer that is being suggested? Let them die.

Does pre-Nazi Germany, present day Holland, and present day U.K. have anything to do with us here in the United States? You bet.

We are now approaching the one-year anniversary of the death of Terri Schiavo. In April of 2005, I wrote an article detailing the danger of the Terri Schiavo case as it has become a part of and contributes to the development of an American culture of death. I invite you to read that article.

Wisdom from Ankle Biting Pundits

Ankle Biting Pundits had this to say about the "Impeach Bush" nonsense that is current in vogue.

For all intents and purposes, "Impeach Bush" is the new "I'm moving to Canada": a Moonbat impulse designed to demonstrate to the world how much they really, really, really want to get back into power, but which, in the end, will hurt Democrats more than Republicans…

It is, indeed, a terrible distraction that will end up costing Democrats seats in Congress, despite the fact that they have already begun to celebrate their 2006 victory. But what is uniquely sad about all this is that, for lack of anything else on the agenda, the "Impeach Bush" mantra is the exclusive offering from the 2006 Democrat slate.

Don't believe me? Fill in this blank:

If we Democrats are elected to a majority in Congress in 2006, we will _________________!

You really have only two answers: 1.) Declare defeat and cut-and-run from Iraq, or 2.) Impeach Bush.

Neither is a winning message.

I couldn't agree more.

Bob Kerrey Calls New Information a "very significant set of facts."

In a recent interview with The New York Sun , former Democratic Nebraska senator and 9-11 commissioner Bob Kerrey said that recently declassified documents show that Saddam Hussein was "a significant enemy of the United States."

One document in particular detailed a February 19, 1995 meeting between an Iraqi official and Osama bin Laden, where bin Laden suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. Two weeks later, when Saddam Hussein was briefed on the meeting, he agreed to the request of bin Laden to broadcast sermons of the radical imam, Suleiman al Ouda.

While Kerrey pointed out that these documents do not prove that Saddam Hussein played a direct role in the 9-11 attacks, he did say, "This is a very significant set of facts… This presents facts should not be used to tie Saddam to attacks on September 11. It does tie him into a circle that meant to damage the United States."

I am anxiously awaiting every major news outlet to report that the 9-11 Commission was mistaken when it concluded in 2004 that there was no operational tie between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Getting the Good Guys and the Bad Guys Straight

The following is from the press release issued by the Christian Peacemaker Teams after three of its members were rescued early this morning after being held hostage in Iraq since November.

Our hearts are filled with joy today as we heard that Harmeet Singh Sooden, Jim Loney and Norman Kember have been safely released in Baghdad.

Notice the term used: released. Is it just me, or does the word released imply being allowed to go free? That just seems like a strange word to used after these three were rescued by a multinational military force which, acting on a tip from a detainee, stormed a house in Baghdad and found the three bound inside.

The press release continues.

We believe that the illegal occupation of Iraq by Multinational Forces is the root cause of the insecurity which led to this kidnapping and so much pain and suffering in Iraq.

Not one word of thanks for the members of that multinational force who rescued these three; instead, they blame the multinational force for the kidnappings, pain, and suffering. That would include, I suppose, the pain and suffering endured by a fourth member of this group, Tom Fox, whose body was found in Baghdad on March 9th. According to police, Fox had been tortured, handcuffed and shot.

Even though they didn't see fit to thank their rescuers, the press release did manage to make this acknowledgement:

We have been especially moved by the gracious outpouring of support from Muslim brothers and sisters in the Middle East, Europe, and North America.

Wait a minute; wasn't it Muslim brothers and sisters who kidnapped these people and who murdered Tom Fox? I must be confused; however, as I read more of the press release, I am reminded of who the real bad guys are.

We pray that Christians throughout the world will, in the same spirit, call for justice and for respect for the human rights of the thousands of Iraqis who are being detained illegally by the U.S. and British forces occupying Iraq.

I wonder if it was one of these innocent Iraqis who was being detained illegally who tipped the multinational military force to the location of these three peacemakers. Maybe, out of respect for his human rights, he should have been allowed to go free. Never mind the fact that he had information regarding this kidnapping. He is just an innocent Muslim brother. It's the U.S. and British forces occupying Iraq who are the bad guys.

Here We Go Again!

Do you remember just a few short months ago when there was all the talk about a war on Christmas? Well, here we go again; this time, though, it's a war on Easter.

In St. Paul, Minnesota, a stuffed Easter bunny, Easter eggs, and a sign reading "Happy Easter," have been removed from the entrance of the city council offices because they might be offensive to non-Christians.

St. Paul human rights director Tyrone Terrill stated, "I sent an e-mail that Easter is viewed as a Christian holiday and advised that it be taken down. It wasn't a big deal."

I'm thinking that Mr. Terrill had better send out another e-mail advising that the city change its name. After all, Saint Paul was a Christian, and living in a city named after him could also be offensive to non-Christians.

Take Action Now! Christian Afghan's Life on the Line.

If you are an American reading this post, your tax money, and mine, helped to finance military action in Afghanistan, military action which defeated the Taliban regime and its Shari'ah (Islamic law), and replaced it with a supposedly democratic form of government. However, in spite of the fact that the Taliban is no longer in power, Abdul Rahman is on trial for his life. His crime? Sixteen years ago he converted from Islam to Christianity.

According to Supreme Court judge Ansarullah Mawlavizada, rejection of Islam is against the law in Afghanistan and is punishable by death. The prosecutor in the case, Abdul Wasi, is reported to have offered to drop the charges if Rahman would reject Christianity and switch back to Islam, but Rahman refuses to do so.

Is this what American soldiers fought for in Afghanistan? Is this what American tax dollars were spent for? I hope not.

The American Family Association (AFA) is asking that we step up and try to help in this situation. Click this link to go to the AFA website. Once there, you may click on a link which will allow you to send an e-mail to President Bush, asking him to intervene in an attempt to save the life of Abdul Rahman. You may send the pre-written letter, or you may edit it as you choose. Either way, please take action.

We all know that John Kerry is a war hero. Now, add scientist or prophet, I'm not sure which, to his resume.

This morning on Don Imus , Kerry made this startling statement:

I can say to an absolute certainly, and I just got a NASA briefing on this the other day, that if things stay exactly as they are today, absent some unpredictable change in what's going on, within the next 30 years, the Arctic ice sheet is gone, not maybe, not if, the Arctic ice sheet is gone. And already you have the Greenland ice sheet beginning to melt. The Greenland ice sheet, unlike the Arctic ice sheet, is on rock. It's out of the water. If that melts, you have a level of sea increase that wipes out Boston Harbor and New York Harbor. I mean, It's just stunning what we're looking at. And yet, there's no -- Europe, other countries are responding. The United States remains oblivious. Or at least the administration remains oblivious.

Well, of course this administration remains oblivious. Why hasn't a man of Senator Kerry's superior intellect figured this out? Bush wants Boston and New York to be washed away into the sea. There are mostly democrats in those cities. It's the same reason Bush created the hurricane to wipe out New Orleans.

Feingold's Censure Resolution Exposes Senate Democrats

This excerpt from Dana Milbank’s column in Wednesday’s Washington Post does an excellent job of summing up the thoughts of senate democrats toward S. Res. 398, the Feingold resolution to censure President Bush for the warrantless wiretapping program.

Democratic senators, filing in for their weekly caucus lunch yesterday, looked as if they'd seen a ghost.

"I haven't read it," demurred Barack Obama (Ill.).

"I just don't have enough information," protested Ben Nelson (Neb.). "I really can't right now," John Kerry (Mass.) said as he hurried past a knot of reporters -- an excuse that fell apart when Kerry was forced into an awkward wait as Capitol Police stopped an aide at the magnetometer.

Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) brushed past the press pack, shaking her head and waving her hand over her shoulder. When an errant food cart blocked her entrance to the meeting room, she tried to hide from reporters behind the 4-foot-11 Barbara Mikulski (Md.).

"Ask her after lunch," offered Clinton's spokesman, Philippe Reines. But Clinton, with most of her colleagues, fled the lunch out a back door as if escaping a fire.

So what’s the problem? If the wiretapping program is illegal, as so many Democrats have claimed, then they should put their vote where their mouth has been. They should vote for S. Res. 398. They should vote for censure.

So far, only one democrat has said that he would join Feingold in voting for the resolution if it comes up: Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa.

The problem for democrats is that Feingold has inadvertently exposed the political game his colleagues on the left side of the aisle have been playing. They’ve been blasting the President all over the media for “illegal wiretapping,” but when push comes to shove, they have to admit, as Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said, "Most of us feel at best it's premature. I don't think anyone can say with any certainty at this juncture that what happened is illegal."

Can’t say that it’s illegal? That’s not what we’ve been hearing, is it? So now the truth comes out; senate democrats have once again been wasting everyone’s time and money trying to pin some stupid, trumped-up charge on the President.

This is the party that thinks it’s going to regain control of Congress this year? It might help them if they would spend at least a little bit of their time trying to do something like – oh, I don’t know - govern.

Lawsuit against Texas "Moment of Silence"

Why do the majority of people in this country continue to allow a small minority of agitators to dictate what we can and cannot do?

Case in point: a Dallas couple has filed a complaint in federal court against Texas governor Rick Perry and the Carrollton-Farmers Branch Independent School District, charging that the state's mandated moment of silence in public schools is unconstitutional.

The Texas law allows children the opportunity to "reflect, pray, meditate or engage in any other silent activities" for one minute each day. However, Plaintiff David Croft said, "This is just a ruse to get prayer in school without calling it prayer in school."

We have a similar law here in Indiana, and I'm sure that there are some students, both here and in Texas, who use that minute to say a silent prayer. There are probably also some who use that minute to think about what they have to do that day, some who spend that minute wondering why they're supposed to be quiet for one minute, and some who are simply trying to stay awake.

If some students are offended because some other students choose to pray, that's too bad. The Constitution does not guarantee anyone freedom from religion. It does, however, guaranteed everyone freedom of religion. As long as no one is being forced to pray, there is nothing unconstitutional about this.

UPDATE: After a little digging, I have come up with some information on the plaintiff in this case, David Wallace Croft. Mr. Croft is the secretary of the Dallas Brights , a Dallas chapter of the Brights Movement . According to their website, a bright is "a person who has a naturalistic worldview," whose "worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements," and whose "ethics and actions ... are based on a naturalistic worldview."

On Mr. Croft's own website , he lists Optihumanism as his religion, and provides a link which defines Optihumanism as "a religion based on a number of influences including Humanism, Individualism, Objectivism, Reductionism, and Transhumanism." He states that "as a transhumanist, I believe that future technologies such as nanotechnology will one day permit us to live forever." Croft lists membership in the American Humanist Association and the Atheist Alliance International. He also mentions that he serves as "Vice Chair and Webmaster of the Metroplex Atheists Reading Group" and has been nominated to serve as the "Chair of the Metroplex Atheists."

Do we understand who these people are who are trying to destroy the right of those of us who believe in God to express our beliefs? Do we clearly understand their agenda? Make no mistake: their agenda is to construct a completely Godless society. They attempt to camouflage their true intentions under the guise of "separation of church and state," but it's not separation they want. It's the destruction of the church they want.

What are conservatives afraid of?

What are conservatives afraid of? That's the question I had to ask myself Sunday morning as I sat and listened to Senator George Allen of Virginia trying to avoid answering Tim Russert's abortion questions on Meet the Press (I was sick, which is why I wasn't at church and which is also one reason I haven't posted anything in almost a week, but hopefully I'm back now.)

Russert referenced the new South Dakota law banning all abortions except those medically necessary to save the life of the mother, and asked Allen, who is pro-life, if he would like for that law to be "the law of the United States of America."

Instead of directly answering the question, Allen began by stating, "Well, first of all I respect and support the right of the people in the states to pass laws that reflect their values and their desires," and eventually ended by saying that he felt there should be exceptions for rape and incest.

So Russert followed up with, "But you would outlaw all abortion except in cases of rape, incest...?"

Again, instead of a direct answer, Allen began talking about individual states determining their own abortion laws.

Oh, I don’t think the federal government ought to be making such laws. I think the laws ought to be determined by the people in the states. If South Dakota wants a law like that, they can have that. If South Carolina wants a different law, that’s up to South Carolina or Virginia or California.

At this point, Allen had backed himself into a corner, enabling Russert's next question to pin him there:

MR. RUSSERT: And if a state said unlimited abortion on demand, you would abide by that?

SEN. ALLEN: Well, I don’t agree with that approach.

MR. RUSSERT: But you said states should have the right...

SEN. ALLEN: But the, but the—if a state did that—I can’t imagine too many states or any state having one that allows abortion for all nine months for any reason or no reason at all. But that would be the right of the people of states. And for those—but if a state like South Dakota wants a law like that, even though it’s not exactly what I would think is appropriate, that does reflect the will of the people. This is a representative democracy and I think that’s an appropriate approach.

What did he say? Senator Allen was obviously trying to work his way out of a very uncomfortable position, and I must say, it was very uncomfortable to watch. But it got even worse.

Russert followed up with a direct question on Roe v. Wade.

MR. RUSSERT: That would mean that Roe v. Wade would have to be overturned, which you would support?

Again, instead of a direct answer, Allen tried to sidestep the question.

SEN. ALLEN: I think Roe v. Wade has been interpreted in such a way that it precludes the rights of the people to decide their laws. When I was governor, we passed the law on parental notification. I think parents ought to be involved if a girl who’s 16, 17 years old...

MR. RUSSERT: So you say overturn Roe. You hope Roe is overturned.

SEN. ALLEN: Yeah, well, Roe—if you need parental notification for ear piercing or a tattoo, they certainly ought to be involved with it. And so I think Roe vs. Wade has been interpreted in such a way as to restrict the will of people. Moreover, that decision was from the early 1970s and medical science has advanced a great deal. We know a lot more and of course, unborn children have an earlier stage of development.

MR. RUSSERT: So overturn it?

SEN. ALLEN: The point is, rather than arguing on a legal term, the point of the matter is, is the people in the states ought to be making these decisions. And if that’s contrary to the dictates of Roe v. Wade, so be it, because the way that Roe v. Wade has been interpreted is taking away the rights of the people in the states to make these decisions.

Wow! What a mess! How much easier it would have been for Allen, when asked whether he would like to see the South Dakota law be "the law of the United States of America," to have either said, "Yes, I would like to see that be the law of the United States of America," or, "Yes, with the added exception for rape and incest." When asked whether he would like to see Roe overturned, how much easier it would have been to simply have said, "Yes, I would like to see Roe overturned."

Why are conservative politicians afraid to say what they think? They don't seem to understand that the conservative movement in this country is strong. They don't seem to understand that if a conservative presidential candidate would speak openly and confidently about his or her conservative values, that candidate would likely win in a landslide over anyone the democrats would run.

I like George Allen, and depending upon who else may be on the Republican ballot in 2008, I may well vote for him in the 2008 primary. If Allen wins the Republican nomination, I will certainly vote for him in the general election. However, I would love to see a conservative presidential candidate who would simply stand up and say, "I believe that Roe was a terribly flawed decision and should be overturned, that abortion kills innocent human babies and should be outlawed in every corner of this country, that marriage should be between a man and a woman only, and that the U.S. Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Furthermore, when I am President, cuts in wasteful spending will mean actual cuts, not just reductions in the amount of increase; America will stand up for American interests; and anyone who wants to make a better life for himself is welcome to come here, but he had better come here legally, and he had better follow our laws.

I think that's a candidate who would get elected.

Encouraging News from Iraq

Ralph Peters provides a glimpse of the Iraqi army that we just don't see in the mainstream media. Writing today from Baghdad for the New York Post , Peters points out what the media has ignored about the aftermath of the recent Golden Mosque bombing: that "it was the Iraqi army that kept the peace in the streets."

We all heard that, after the bombing, Iraq was on the verge of a civil war. It didn't happen. Why not?

Peters makes the following points about the Iraqi military's response to the crisis:

* The Iraqi army deployed over 100,000 soldiers to maintain public order. U.S. Forces remained available as a backup, but Iraqi soldiers controlled the streets.

* Iraqi forces behaved with discipline and restraint - as the local sectarian outbreaks fizzled, not one civilian had been killed by an Iraqi soldier.

* Time and again, Iraqi military officers were able to defuse potential confrontations and frustrate terrorist hopes of igniting a religious war.

* Forty-seven battalions drawn from all 10 of Iraq's army divisions took part in an operation that, above all, aimed at reassuring the public. The effort worked - from the luxury districts to the slums, the Iraqis were proud of their army.

Peters relates that, in a Post interview on Saturday, the commander of Iraq's ground forces, Lt.-Gen. Abdul Qadir, had this to say:

Not one unit had sectarian difficulties, not one. And when we canceled all leaves after the mosque bombing - we expected trouble, of course - our soldiers returned promptly to their units. Now it is as you see for yourself: Iraqis are proud of their own soldiers.

Peters stressed that there is still a long way to go, and says that when he asked General Qadir when he thought American troops should leave Iraq, the general replied, "We must not be in too great a hurry for you to go."

There is a long way to go, but I have to believe that the progress being made is much greater than what the mainstream media is telling us. I also have to believe that the events of the last few weeks should be encouraging.

Army Sgt. Rickey Edward Jones

On Monday, March 6, 2006, the city of Kokomo, Indiana, and the surrounding area will honor the life of Army Sgt. Rickey Edward Jones. Sgt. Jones was killed Wednesday, Feb. 22, 2006, north of Baghdad, Iraq.

Although I did not know Rickey Jones personally, when someone from your hometown is killed in battle, especially when that town is a small town like Kokomo, it really brings the reality of the battle home. No matter what anyone feels about U.S. involvement in Iraq - for it or against it, justified or not - all decent people can come together and show support for a family who has lost a son, a brother, a grandson.

Sadly, the family has had to endure not only the death of this young man, but also the abomination of depraved individuals who have vandalized their home and who have placed anonymous phone calls saying, “We’re glad your son is dead.”

Now, a hate group from Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, is planning to protest Monday's funeral. This group, led by Fred Phelps (I refuse to use the title Reverend in front of this man's name), has no resemblance to anything that I recognize as Christianity. Their website is so hateful that it turned my stomach when I examined it. The primary target of their hate is homosexuals, and their protests at soldiers' funerals stem from a belief that the soldiers were fighting for a nation that protects homosexuals. While I, as a Christian, believe that homosexuality is a sin in God's eyes, I fully believe in the old maxim "Hate the sin; love the sinner." Homosexuals, just like all sinners, need prayer, not hate.

This group in no way represents Christian values as I know them, and those who would add more pain to the pain the family of a fallen soldier is already feeling in no way represents the city of Kokomo.

The family and friends of Sgt. Rickey Edward Jones should know that Kokomo, Indiana, as well as a grateful nation, honor them and their son.

Keep Iran Out of Auschwitz!

The government of Iran wants to inspect the Nazi death camp in Auschwitz, Poland in order to determine whether the Holocaust really happened. Poland quickly refused, with Polish Foreign Minister Stefan Miller saying, "Under no circumstances should we permit this. This is beyond all imaginable norms that such a thing is discussed."

A February 24th editorial in Jewish Forward made this observation:

Iran is essentially arguing that, because the religious sensibilities of Muslims were trampled on by the publication of cartoons, the appropriate response is to challenge in the most offensive way possible the torture and murder of 6 million Jews. The notion falls somewhere between depravity and idiocy. It is hard to tell if officials in Tehran are bent on fomenting international tensions or just ignorant enough to think that they would be allowed to march onto hallowed ground and poke through the bones of the Nazi's victims.

Well said!

Hamas Must Recognize Israel

Ahead of high level talks in Moscow on Friday , Hamas' exiled political leader Khaled Mashaal stated, "The issue of recognition is a decided issue. We don't intend to recognize Israel."

The world community needs to make this clear: Unless Hamas reverses that stance on Israel, we don't intend to recognize Hamas.

A Former Taliban at Yale

Writing in Monday's Opinion Journal , John Fund sheds some light on new Yale freshman Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi. Mr. Rahmatullah, a former spokesman for the Taliban, is attending Yale on a U.S. student visa!

Fund, who had personally interviewed Rahmatullah for The Wall Street Journal in the spring of 2001, makes this observation:

Something is very wrong at our elite universities. Last week Larry Summers resigned as president of Harvard when it became clear he would lose a no-confidence vote held by politically correct faculty members furious at his efforts to allow ROTC on campus, his opposition to a drive to have Harvard divest itself of corporate investments in Israel, and his efforts to make professors work harder. Now Yale is giving a first-class education to an erstwhile high official in one of the most evil regimes of the latter half of the 20th century--the government that harbored the terrorists who attacked America on Sept. 11, 2001.

So why would Yale want Rahmatullah as a student studying at their great university? Because diversity is a hallmark of great liberal thinking. Fund makes the observation that this is "taking the obsession that U.S. universities have with promoting diversity a bit too far."

"A bit too far" is a bit of an understatement. Universities are now recruiting for diversity the way they recruit for athletes. Richard Shaw, Yale's dean of undergraduate admissions, told the New York Times that Yale "had another foreigner of Rahmatullah's caliber apply for special-student status" and that "we lost him to Harvard...I didn't want that to happen again."

Considering the fact that Rahmatullah has only a fourth-grade education and a high school equivalency certificate, I have to assume that by "foreigner of Rahmatullah's caliber," Shaw is not referring to academic preparation. To what, then, can he be referring? Could he mean someone who, as ambassador-at-large for the Taliban, called Osama bin Laden a "guest" of his government?

Fund admits, "I don't believe Mr. Rahmatullah had direct knowledge of the 9/11 plot, and I don't think he has ever killed anyone," but he also points out that Rahmatullah "willingly and cheerfully served an evil regime in a manner that would have made (Josef) Goebbels proud." Fund then relates this story of another man who once served an evil regime:

During a trip to Germany I once ran into a relative of Hans Fritsche, the top deputy to Josef Goebbels, whom the Guardian, a British newspaper, once described as "the Nazi Propaganda Minister's leading radio spokesman [whose] commentaries were among the main items of German home and foreign broadcasting." After the war he was tried as a war criminal at Nuremberg, but because he had only given hate-filled speeches, he was acquitted of all charges in 1946. In the early 1950s, he applied for a visa to visit the U.S. and explain his regret at having served an evil regime. He was turned down, to the everlasting regret of the relative with whom I spoke.

But that was a time before political correctness; it was a time before diversity meant more than common sense. Poor Hans Fritsche. He had the misfortune of living during such a time. If only he had been fortunate enough to have lived during this enlightened period of history, he might have received an Ivy League education.