The biggest untold story of the war on terror: the CIA's war against the Bush administration
11.30.05 (12:20 pm) [edit]Read and be amazed. -- http://www.weeklystandard.com...
Bill Clinton finally reveals his true self
11.23.05 (9:43 am) [edit]Remember post presidency Bill Clinton? He was a moderate. He supported our efforts in Afghanistan. He even supported our events in Iraq, largely because he was the policy engine behind it. But the real Bill Clinton emerged recently with his hypocritical and, more importantly, traitorous criticism of the war-- just 200 miles from US troops in Iraq in Dubai. Perhaps Clinton believes that enough time has passed for people to forget the type of person he was during president, his true character. But that is wrong-- he is a smug, lying, psychotic individual who has no moral center. In short, a perfect communist.
Bill Clinton slaughtered folks at WACO, and slaughtered many more at 9/11 and in Iraq primarily because of his lack of backbone and disregard for the rights of others.
An excellent Dick Morris article- http://www.frontpagemag.com/A...
Would you like Cuba, Iran, and North Korea running the internet? Thought so....
11.17.05 (3:15 pm) [edit]More on the attempt by the world, specically countries that hate us or are jealous of us, to take control of the internet, which was invented in the US, from the semi-private US company ICANN and give it to the UN. Because, well, you know how well they run things.
People aren't really paying attention to this, but consider: the US is the freest country on earth. If the internet were controlled by the UN, which has ratified the ICC, do you think it possible that US bloggers or any US citizen exercizing his/her God-given rights to expression could be charged with a crime (like, for example, a "hate crime")? Don't laugh. The US didn't sign the treaty specifically because it infringed upon our liberties. Other countries clearly want to use our freedoms against us, and taking control of our internet, which has worked amazing well for the entire planet for a long time, is a hell of a way to do it.
Article-- http://www.frontpagemag.com/A...
Iraq war-crimes accuser proven to be a fraud, yet the left-wing media that shilled for him don't car
11.14.05 (10:57 am) [edit]Why is it that liberals can't tell the truth? Why is it that "for the cause" they feel that any means is OK? Why can't the truth speak for itself? Maybe it's because their very beliefs are lies.
From the New York Post
Excerpt:
[i]November 10, 2005 -- It's easy to see why Jimmy Massey be came an instant darling of the liberal news media: With his personal testimony that he and his fellow Marines, acting under direct orders, committed war crimes, he was the Iraq war's iteration of Jane Fonda and John Kerry.
And equally truthful.
[i]Scores of media outlets rushed his claims into print, under such headlines as: "I killed innocent people for our government." He was a featured guest on National Public Radio, and college officials fell all over themselves in the stampede to invite him as a guest speaker.
Pretty soon, he'd published a book, "Kill, Kill, Kill," which was released in — surprise, surprise — France. And he became a star attraction on Cindy Sheehan's national self-pity parade.
Sure, the Pentagon insisted his allegations had been probed and discredited. But no one paid any attention to that.
Not until last weekend, when the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that its own investigation showed conclusively that Massey, plain and simple, is a liar.
As the paper's Ron Harris reported: "Each of his claims is either demonstrably false or exaggerated — according to his fellow Marines, Massey's own admissions and the five journalists who were embedded with Massey's unit."[/i]
More- -- http://www.nypost.com/postopi...
New Orleans struggles to rebuild, and architects miss the reality
11.12.05 (3:25 pm) [edit][b]Architects Envision New Orleans Rebuilding[/b]
By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN, Associated Press Writer
11-12-05
NEW ORLEANS - Michael Willis has designed an airport terminal in San Francisco and a 750 million-gallon water treatment plant in Los Angeles, but nothing on the architect's resume gives him a blueprint for rebuilding New Orleans.
Not since the Nazi blitz of London or the bombing of Hiroshima have architects and urban planners seen a project on par with resurrecting this hurricane-ravaged city, according to Willis.
"The scale of it overwhelms the normal city planning process," he said Saturday during a break at the Louisiana Recovery and Rebuilding Conference, a state-sponsored event organized by the American Institute of Architects to discuss the city's future.
Hundreds of civic and business leaders, elected officials and planning experts have been weighing the options during the three-day conference that wrapped up Saturday. The goal: come up with written agenda to help guide the massive rebuilding effort.
"Before you can plan something like this, you have to get the fundamentals. You've got to work the principles out," said Ron Faucheux, head of government affairs for the Washington-based AIA.
Several architects, including Willis, urged civic leaders to avoid a "one-size-fits-all" approach.
This is a unique opportunity to create "walkable," densely populated neighborhoods with a rich texture of demographic and architectural diversity, said David Dixon, a principal at the Boston-based Goody, Clancy architectural firm.
"New Orleans can go one of two directions: It can be Las Vegas, a city based on entertainment," he said, "or it can be America's greenest, most walkable city."
Preserving historic architecture must be a guiding principle for any approach, Willis said.
"At the end of the day, it's got to look and feel like New Orleans," he said.
For the audience, though, the cost of rebuilding was a major concern, and Dixon's suggestion that state and local officials share the financial burden with the federal government didn't go over well.
"We don't have money. We have zero revenue at the moment," said city Councilwoman Jacquelyn Brechtel Clarkson, who represents the French Quarter.
The mayor already cut the city's work force by half, the state is facing a nearly $1 billion deficit, and hundreds of businesses and homes that supported the city's tax base have been destroyed.
Tom Reese, who works at Tulane University and has researched contemporary architecture, said the architects were "selling dreams" when they urged city leaders to embrace planning concepts like "smart growth," "green architecture" and mixed-use developments.
"There is so little discussion about the economic realities of this region," he said. "If you don't know that, you can't begin to create any kind of solution."
President Bush (finally) fights back on Iraq
11.11.05 (3:28 pm) [edit]Excerpts from President Bush's Veteran's Day speech in Pennsylvania:
[i]While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. Some Democrats and antiwar critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: 'When I vote to give the president of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat and a grave threat to our security.' That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power....
...These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that, whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united and we will settle for nothing less than victory.[/i]
Full text here- http://www.whitehouse.gov/new...
The World Meets in Tunisia to Wrest Control of the Internet from the US-- We Must Defend It
11.07.05 (11:21 am) [edit]Wall Street Journal Commentary by Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN)-- http://online.wsj.com/article...
[b]Beware a 'Digital Munich'[/b]
By NORM COLEMAN
November 7, 2005; Page A21
It sounds like a Tom Clancy plot. An anonymous group of international technocrats holds secretive meetings in Geneva. Their cover story: devising a blueprint to help the developing world more fully participate in the digital revolution. Their real mission: strategizing to take over management of the Internet from the U.S. and enable the United Nations to dominate and politicize the World Wide Web. Does it sound too bizarre to be true? Regrettably, much of what emanates these days from the U.N. does.
The Internet faces a grave threat. We must defend it. We need to preserve this unprecedented communications and informational medium, which fosters freedom and enterprise. We can not allow the U.N. to control the Internet.
The threat is posed by the U.N.-sponsored World Summit on the Information Society taking place later this month in Tunisia. At the WSIS preparatory meeting weeks ago, it became apparent that the agenda had been transformed. Instead of discussing how to place $100 laptops in the hands of the world's children, the delegates schemed to transfer Internet control into the hands of intrigue-plagued bureaucracies.
The low point of that planning session was the European Union's shameful endorsement of a plan favored by China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Cuba that would terminate the historic U.S. role in Internet government oversight, relegate both private enterprise and non-governmental organizations to the sidelines, and place a U.N.-dominated group in charge of the Internet's operation and future. The EU's declaration was a "political coup," according to London's Guardian newspaper, which predicted that once the world's governments awarded themselves control of the Internet, the U.S. would be able to do little but acquiesce.
I disagree. Such acquiescence would amount to appeasement. We cannot allow Tunis to become a digital Munich.
There is no rational justification for politicizing Internet governance within a U.N. framework. The chairman of the WSIS Internet Governance Subcommittee himself recently affirmed that existing Internet governance arrangements "have worked effectively to make the Internet the highly robust, dynamic and geographically diverse medium it is today, with the private sector taking the lead in day-to-day operations, and with innovation and value creation at the edges."
Nor is there a rational basis for the anti-U.S. resentment driving the proposal. The history of the U.S. government's Internet involvement has been one of relinquishing control. Rooted in a Defense Department project of the 1960s, the Internet was transferred to civilian hands and then opened to commerce by the National Science Foundation in 1995. Three years later, the non-profit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers assumed governance responsibility under Department of Commerce oversight. Icann, with its international work force and active Governmental Advisory Committee, is scheduled to be fully privatized next year. Privatization, not politicization, is the right Internet governance regime.
We do not stand alone in our pursuit of that goal. The majority of European telecommunications companies have already dissented from the EU's Geneva announcement, with one executive pronouncing it "a U-turn by the European Union that was as unexpected as it was disturbing."
In addition to resentment of U.S. technological leadership, proponents of politicization are driven by fear -- of access to full and accurate information, and of the opportunity for legitimate political discourse and organization, provided by the Internet. Nations like China, which are behind the U.N. plan to take control, censor their citizens' Web sites, and monitor emails and chat rooms to stifle legitimate political dissent. U.N. control would shield this kind of activity from scrutiny and criticism.
The U.S. must do more to advance the values of an open Internet in our broader trade and diplomatic conversations. We cannot expect U.S. high-tech companies seeking business opportunities in growing markets to defy official policy; yet we cannot stand idly by as some governments seek to make the Internet an instrument of censorship and political suppression. To those nations that seek to wall off their populations from information and dialogue we must say, as Ronald Reagan said in Berlin, "Tear down this wall."
Allowing Internet governance to be politicized under U.N. auspices would raise a variety of dangers. First, it is wantonly irresponsible to tolerate any expansion of the U.N.'s portfolio before that abysmally managed and sometimes-corrupt institution undertakes sweeping, overdue reform. It would be equal folly to let Icann be displaced by the U.N.'s International Telecommunication Union, a regulatory redoubt for those state telephone monopolies most threatened by the voice over Internet protocol revolution.
Also, as we expand the global digital economy, the stability and reliability of the Internet becomes a matter of security. Technical minutiae have profound implications for competition and trade, democratization, free expression and access to information, privacy and intellectual-property protection.
Responding to the present danger, I have initiated a Sense of the Senate Resolution that supports the four governance principles articulated by the administration on June 30:
• Preservation of the security and stability of the Internet domain name and addressing system (DNS).
• Recognition of the legitimate interest of governments in managing their own country code top-level domains.
• Support for Icann as the appropriate technical manager of the Internet DNS.
• Participation in continuing dialogue on Internet governance, with continued support for market-based approaches toward, and private-sector leadership of, its further evolution.
I also intend to seek hearings in advance of the Tunis Summit to explore the implications of multinational politicization of Internet governance. While Tunis marks the end of the WSIS process, it is just the beginning of a long, multinational debate on the values that the Internet will incorporate and foster. Our responsibility is to safeguard the full potential of the new information society that the Internet has brought into being.
Mr. Coleman is a Republican senator from Minnesota.
Plame's outing a result of either CIA incompetence or a desire to undermine the White House
11.06.05 (10:07 am) [edit]From Opinion Journal-- http://www.opinionjournal.com...
[b]Investigate the CIA
An "outing" was the result of either incompetence or an effort to undermine the White House.[/b]
BY VICTORIA TOENSING
Sunday, November 6, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST
In a surprise, closed-door debate, Senate Democrats last week demanded an investigation of pre-Iraq War intelligence. Here's an issue for them: Assess the validity of the claim that Valerie Plame's status was "covert," or even properly classified, given the wretched tradecraft by the Central Intelligence Agency throughout the entire episode. It was, after all, the CIA that requested the "leak" investigation, alleging that one of its agents had been outed in Bob Novak's July 14, 2003, column. Yet it was the CIA's bizarre conduct that led inexorably to Ms. Plame's unveiling.
When the Intelligence Identities Protection Act was being negotiated, Senate Select Committee Chairman Barry Goldwater was adamant: If the CIA desired a law making it illegal to expose one of its deep cover employees, then the agency must do a much better job of protecting their cover. That is why a criterion for any prosecution under the act is that the government was taking "affirmative measures" to conceal the protected person's relationship to the intelligence agency. Two decades later, the CIA, either purposely or with gross negligence, made a series of decisions that led to Ms. Plame becoming a household name:
• The CIA sent her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, to Niger on a sensitive mission regarding WMD. He was to determine whether Iraq had attempted to purchase yellowcake, an essential ingredient for unconventional weapons. However, it was Ms. Plame, not Mr. Wilson, who was the WMD expert. Moreover, Mr. Wilson had no intelligence background, was never a senior person in Niger when he was in the State Department, and was opposed to the administration's Iraq policy. The assignment was given, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee, at Ms. Plame's suggestion.
• Mr. Wilson was not required to sign a confidentiality agreement, a mandatory act for the rest of us who either carry out any similar CIA assignment or represent CIA clients.
• When he returned from Niger, Mr. Wilson was not required to write a report, but rather merely to provide an oral briefing. That information was not sent to the White House. If this mission to Niger were so important, wouldn't a competent intelligence agency want a thoughtful written assessment from the "missionary," if for no other reason than to establish a record to refute any subsequent misrepresentation of that assessment? Because it was the vice president who initially inquired about Niger and the yellowcake (although he had nothing to do with Mr. Wilson being sent), it is curious that neither his office nor the president's were privy to the fruits of Mr. Wilson's oral report.
• Although Mr. Wilson did not have to write even one word for the agency that sent him on the mission at taxpayer's expense, over a year later he was permitted to tell all about this sensitive assignment in the New York Times. For the rest of us, writing about such an assignment would mean we'd have to bring our proposed op-ed before the CIA's Prepublication Review Board and spend countless hours arguing over every word to be published. Congressional oversight committees should want to know who at the CIA permitted the publication of the article, which, it has been reported, did not jibe with the thrust of Mr. Wilson's oral briefing. For starters, if the piece had been properly vetted at the CIA, someone should have known that the agency never briefed the vice president on the trip, as claimed by Mr. Wilson in his op-ed.
• More important than the inaccuracies is that, if the CIA truly, truly, truly had wanted Ms. Plame's identity to be secret, it never would have permitted her spouse to write the op-ed. Did no one at Langley think that her identity could be compromised if her spouse wrote a piece discussing a foreign mission about a volatile political issue that focused on her expertise? The obvious question a sophisticated journalist such as Mr. Novak asked after "Why did the CIA send Wilson?" was "Who is Wilson?" After being told by a still-unnamed administration source that Mr. Wilson's "wife" suggested him for the assignment, Mr. Novak went to Who's Who, which reveals "Valerie Plame" as Mr. Wilson's spouse.
• CIA incompetence did not end there. When Mr. Novak called the agency to verify Ms. Plame's employment, it not only did so, but failed to go beyond the perfunctory request not to publish. Every experienced Washington journalist knows that when the CIA really does not want something public, there are serious requests from the top, usually the director. Only the press office talked to Mr. Novak.
• Although high-ranking Justice Department officials are prohibited from political activity, the CIA had no problem permitting its deep cover or classified employee from making political contributions under the name "Wilson, Valerie E.," information publicly available at the Federal Elections Commission.
The CIA conduct in this matter is either a brilliant covert action against the White House or inept intelligence tradecraft. It is up to Congress to decide which.
Ms. Toensing, a Washington lawyer, is a former chief counsel for the Senate Intelligence Committee and former deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration.
Iraq. Let's take another look at the facts.
11.05.05 (3:07 pm) [edit]1)The UN decreed Saddam Hussein had WMD. Hussein agreed to let the UN find and dismantle his WMD. Hussein did not let the UN do its job. Therefore, he broke his [i]cease-fire agreement[/i] with the UN. What happens when a cease-fire is broken?
2)Throughout the 1990s, in an effort to profit from, not solve the problem of Saddam and his WMD, the UN engaged in an oil-for-profit scheme to further impoverish the Iraqi people and further enrich themselves. The can was kicked on down the road. While all of this is going on in the Middle East, another man-- Osama bin Laden-- and a group of knuckle-draggers called the Taliban, are proceeding unabated by the UN and, more seriously, the only entity that can stop them-- the US.
3)Bill Clinton made the case for war with Iraq in 1998 and got the Iraqi Liberation Act passed. This was the post-World War II version of a declaration of war, much like our involvement of Vietnam and Korea was. A declaration of war is serious business. Nevertheless, Clinton accomplished this feat by using the CIA's claims about Iraq's WMD, even mentioning Iraq's nuclear program. Throughout the late 1990s Clinton did nothing to stop Saddam or respond to terror against the US-- he just lobbed missiles in the hopes it would look like he was doing something.
This is important to note. Terrorists like OBL were further emboldened in their plans because they rightly saw the US as too weak to respond to even attacks against their own people (WTC in 1993, Khobar towers, etc.), while Saddam realized that the US was politically unwilling to do anything about his own breaking of an international cease-fire. Since the US is the UN, Hussein realized quite rightly that he could outlast the UN and stay in power. No one was doing a thing to stop him.
4)On September 11, 2001 we had a new president and Saddam's and Bin Laden's fate were intertwined. Not because they were the same ideologically, though they were more similar than most would think, but because they both used terror for their own gains-- namely to kill Americans.
After dispatching of the immediate problem, Afghanistan's Taliban which harbored OBL,
President Bush artlessly called three countries an "Axis of Evil". Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. Iran is the center of anti-US, anti-Israel terrorism in the world, where it all comes from. Iraq is a Arab Muslim country that borders Iran and was believed to have WMD. North Korea was in the fun business of shipping WMD to these terrorists and helping build nukes while threatening democracy in Asia.
To confront North Korea, the US is still trying to use diplomacy and the weight of China. With Iraq, the US tried the same thing. Yet again another UN resolution was passed threatening Hussein to come clean-- to let the inspectors inspect everything per the cease-fire-- and yet again Hussein bet on the UN's weakness. Russia, France, and China, the three biggest profiteers from the oil-for-food program and friends of the regime in general, blocked the US from getting a vote on a resolution for force.
At the time pundits and diplomats at the UN were rejecting the US case for war by saying there were no WMD in Iraq. In truth, they knew less than we did. What was certain was that Hussein had no intention of letting the world find out-- which is why he signed the cease-fire agreement in the first place. Since post 9-11 the US could not let such a grave and gathering danger continue (especially since it was entirely probably Hussein would sell his WMD)he asked for-- and received from Congress-- another authorization for war. This was all based on the CIA's majority opinion in its National Intelligence Estimate, and were not inflated claims of the Bush administration.
The rest is history-- we know that we have not found the stockpiles that every major power up until 2003 believed Iraq had. But we know, don't we? We also know that we have the world's first Arab democracy growing in Iraq and that for the first time all Iraqis are equal and can hold their government accountable. This, and this alone, stop terror. What is this? Freedom.
The US had every right to secure its freedom, it had every right to defend itself from terror. If that meant war, if after every other attempt to solve the issue peacefully had been justified-- that's what it takes. And Iraq has every right to gain the international support it still lacks-- especially from the snobby socialists in the western elite.
Don't like the war in Iraq? That's fine. But to claim it was based on lies doesn't fly with the facts. Even in light of a massive, 15 year intelligence failure (which is hard to believe), the US had every right both internationally and especially as a sovereign state to defend itself. Iraq is part of the war on terror, and a succesful Iraq will be part of the solution.
A good read by Jonah Goldberg-- http://www.townhall.com/opini...://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/mikea dams/2005/11/02/173907.html
France quickly reaping the rewards of coddling terrorism and pushing failed socialism
11.05.05 (1:56 pm) [edit]Here's all you need to know about the riots in France. One, they are started by the poor immigrants who are famously segregated in this enlightened country. Two, they are dirt poor, thanks largely to France's social-state insanity. Three, they are home to mostly young Muslims, who have an eager ear for the kind of terror that France lectured us on how to handle.
Got it? Good. We may be watching the death of France, surely a harbinger of things to come for the rest of Europe. The Arab population in Europe is exploding, while the natives aren't reproducing at all. London is known as "Londinistan", and no one wants to fight the kind of environment being created, the kind that cowers in the face of terror.
The Weekly Standard has a good feature on the riots-- http://weeklystandard.com/Con... .
The Left selects when a CIA leak is important, and when it is not
11.05.05 (8:07 am) [edit]...and usually you can tell by its relative import to national security.
Read on-- http://www.nationalreview.com...
November 04, 2005, 11:58 a.m.
[b]Overt Inconsistency
The Washington Post plays covert games.[/b]
By William J. Bennett
Moral consistency may never have been a strong virtue of the Left or the Mainstream Media (Am I being redundant?). I suppose, then, we should perhaps thank Joe Wilson for getting the Left and the MSM to finally support and think of the value of the CIA and its agents, even its agents whose jobs are classified.
However, that support for the CIA, and that respect for secrecy in war and intelligence, lasted only as long as they thought it might bring down a high official like Karl Rove. Now they're back to their old selves.
Item: Dana Priest of the Washington Post writes a front-page story on Wednesday headlined, CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons. Pay close attention to the second sentence of the story: "The secret facility is part of a covert prison system set up by the CIA nearly four years ago that at various times has included sites in eight countries, including Thailand, Afghanistan and several democracies in Eastern Europe, as well as a small center at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, according to current and former intelligence officials and diplomats from three continents."
"Secret"! "Covert"! So after the press and the Left make a meal of the allegation that people in the White House might have leaked the name of a covert operative, and after we find out that Plame was indeed not a covert operative under the law, the Washington Post — by its own admission — can print classified information that involves covert CIA activity?
This is an outrage. It took less than a day for al Jazeera to run with the story. And by Dana Priest's own admission in an online discussion forum on the Washington Post's website she states, "The article [I wrote] is bommeranging [sic] around Europe, especially Eastern Europe."
It sure is, and now the European Union, the Hague, and other organizations are investigating our allies who are working with us in holding high-value targets like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin Al-Shib. It's not enough that our allies in Europe have suffered terrorism (cf. Spain, the U.K.) because of their siding with us — we now have to expose others, and give more justification to terrorists to attack our allies? And we have to suffer the war-time distraction of rebuilding sites and moving these prisoners?
This is irresponsibility at its highest; it's also hypocrisy. As for Plame? Well, here again is Dana Priest in her online forum: "I don't actually think the Plame leak compromised national security, from what I've been able to learn about her position."
You wouldn't know the foregoing from the way the Left and the press have handled the Scooter Libby story. Not only did he not out a covert agent, neither did Karl Rove — who is now the focus of the Left's wrath and the media's investigation. Who did out a secret and covert operation? The Washington Post. Shame on them. The consequences of what they've done will continue to rattle and distract our efforts — so too our allies'. In the meantime, the next time a White House correspondent tries to put Scott McClellan on the line for his involvement in the Wilson-Plame affair, I hope he unloads on them for what they've done here. I hope, too, that Jay Rockefeller and Harry Reid call for an investigation of just where this leak came from.
— William J. Bennett is the host of the nationally syndicated radio show, Bill Bennett's Morning in America, and the Washington Fellow at the Claremont Institute.
Iraq's film industry roars back to life after years of darkness
11.03.05 (3:34 pm) [edit]A wonderful article on the rebirth of Iraq's film industry, including this wonderful quote from Iraqi filmaker Oday Rasheed-- "It's like the country has been in a locked jail cell for 30 yeara...We're still blinking from the light of the sun."
Read more- http://nationalreview.com/com...