Andy Mosher and Bassam Sebti with Naseer Nouri draw the curtain back on the real Baghdad, a Mad Max scene of unpredictable explosions, scattered body parts, inadequate and undependable electricity, lack of refrigeration, water sabotage, and weeping madmen:

'Nearby, a scruffy young man in dirty pants and an unbuttoned shirt stood staring at vegetables scattered on the ground by one of the explosions. Bending over and picking up an onion spattered with blood, he began to cry. "Every one of you in Karrada calls me Crazy Ali," he said to no one in particular. "But I would never do such a thing. I am better than you sane people. At least I do not hurt you."'

For years, I struggled to comprehend how the good people of Germany could allow someone such as Adolph Hitler to lead them into what became World War II. After all, before Hitler's rise to power, Germany had a rich Christian heritage. The Reformation out of the Dark Ages had its roots deeply imbedded in Germany and surrounding countries.

Furthermore, Germany has long produced some of the most intelligent and creative people on the planet! Many of the world's greatest engineers and scientists have come from Germany and Austria. When it comes to knowledge and education, the Germanic people take a back seat to no one.

How, then, could the good, intelligent people of Germany follow and support someone such as Hitler? For years I struggled to find the answer to that puzzle. Now, I believe I understand.

Obviously, one does not gain the trust and confidence of people by portraying himself as a monster. Does anyone truly believe that the German people would have supported Hitler if they had thought he was some kind of ogre? As with most leaders, Hitler preached faith, family, and patriotism. His speeches were laced with references to God. He personally claimed Christ to be his Savior. Even his adopted Nazi symbol was created around the Christian cross. As far as the German people were concerned, Adolph Hitler was loyal to historic, conservative Christian values. Why should they have thought otherwise?

However, it did not take long for Hitler to begin turning Germany from an independent, peaceful republic into an aggressive global empire. And it is at this point that the German people, and especially the German church, must share culpability for Hitler's sins.

First, On March 23, 1933, the newly elected members of the Reichstag (the German Parliament) met in the Kroll Opera House in Berlin to consider passing Hitler's "Ermächtigungsgesetz" or, The "Enabling Act." This Act was officially called the "Law for Removing the Distress of the People and the Reich."

Opponents of the "Enabling Act" rightly warned that, if adopted, the Act would make Hitler a de facto dictator. They worried that the Act would dismantle constitutional liberties. History would prove that their worries were valid.

At the time, however, it was anything but certain that Hitler would prevail in convincing German lawmakers to pass his "Enabling Act." Then, suddenly, terrorists struck the Reichstag building.

After the Reichstag was burned on February 28, 1933, President Hindenburg and Hitler invoked Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution, which permitted the suspension of civil liberties during national emergencies. As a result, freedom of the press, free expression of opinion, individual property rights, right of assembly and association, right to privacy of postal and electronic communications, states' rights of self-government, and protection against unlawful searches and seizures were suspended. Shortly afterward, the "Enabling Act" was passed, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Of course, historians have widely speculated that it was Nazis, themselves, that had set the fire in order to facilitate passage of the "Enabling Act" and ensconce Hitler as Germany's Fuhrer. No one knows for sure who burned the Reichstag, but what we do know is that Hitler used that act of terrorism to gain the support of the people as a "wartime president."

The German people were convinced that their country was under attack and that Hitler was the leader who could protect them. Consider the statement of one of Hitler's most trusted cabinet members, Hermann Goering, "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." (Source: Transcript of Nuremberg Trials)

Compare Goering's statement to former Attorney General John Ashcroft who, in defending the USA Patriot Act (which does much the same thing as Hitler's "Enabling Act") said, "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve." (Source: Press Report, Center for Public Integrity)

Is it only a coincidence (or a repeat of history) that Republicans have introduced a bill in Congress to nullify the 22nd Amendment thereby opening the door for President George W. Bush to become permanent president? (Source: U.S. House of Representatives, H.J. Res. 24 "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution" introduced February 17, 2005.)

Add to H.J. Res. 24 the World Net Daily report that "A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.

"Morgan Reynolds, former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term, says the official story about the collapse of the Twin Towers is 'bogus' and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed them and adjacent Building No. 7."

WND quotes Reynolds as stating further, "Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings."

Whether the Twin Towers and Building 7 were brought down via "an inside job" or not, one thing is certain: the attacks of September 11, 2001 became the catalyst that propelled Congressmen to quickly pass the USA Patriot Act even though none of them had read it.

Much is being made over the fact that on Wednesday of this week, the House of Representatives removed some "sneak and peek" features regarding public libraries from the Patriot Act. Of course, President Bush is livid and is threatening to veto the bill without that segment of the Act included. However, what few people seem to notice is that a host of egregiously unconstitutional abridgments of freedom remain intact in the Patriot Act.

Under the Patriot Act, government agents can conduct searches in your home or business and search your belongings without informing you and without a court order. Government agents are permitted to arrest and detain individuals and to hold them indefinitely, without being charged with a crime, and without being allowed access to an attorney. In other words, the Patriot Act (like Hitler's "Enabling Act") expunges our Fourth Amendment protections against illegal searches and seizures and our right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects.

Furthermore, the Patriot Act (like Hitler's "Enabling Act") destroys our Fifth Amendment right to be held for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, without an indictment of a grand jury. The Patriot Act also eviscerates a citizen's constitutional right of Habeas Corpus.

The point is, as with Hitler's Germany, so, too, the American people, and especially America's churches, are willingly and enthusiastically surrendering constitutional liberties in order to accommodate President Bush's desires for authoritarian power as a "wartime president."

Consider, too, Hitler's invasion of Germany's neighbors. People cheered as German troops attacked other nations. And even though those nations had not participated in any attack against Germany, Hitler had convinced people that preemptive attacks against those nations were necessary as they would make Germany "more secure." Does this or does this not sound just like President Bush's justification for invading Iraq?

Once again, please remember that the German people believed Hitler to be a patriotic, Christian man. As a result, Hitler had the unflinching support of Germany's conservative Christian ministers. How else would they be pe rsuaded to follow Hitler into the nightmare of the Nazi regime?

Remember, also, that to most German ministers, the Nazi Party was "God's Party." They really believed they were being faithful to God by being faithful to Hitler. Therefore, should we not be concerned today when we hear of Christian ministers excommunicating church members who do not support President Bush or the Republican Party? Should not "red flags" go up in our minds when we hear Christian ministers excuse Bush's unconstitutional con duct by proclaiming, "Bush is God's man for America, therefore, we cannot criticize him!"?

Yes, my friends, it is now obvious to me how Adolph Hitler seized power in Germany, because the same principles that Hitler used in the 1930's are being used by America's leaders today.

Am I saying that I believe President Bush is another Hitler? Of course not. I am saying, however, that the same tactics and strategies being used by President Bush are eerily similar to those of the former German leader's. Certainly, we all pray for a fate far better than that of Hitler's Germany. But to obtain a better future for America, it is obligatory that we remember the lessons of Germany's past.

When I first spoke to a close Christian friend of mine about the publishing of Tony Bushby's The Bible Fraud, her reaction was one that many Christians have expressed, and one that made me aghast. She didn't want the book available because it would "persuade them away from the Bible and the word of God." Further discussions with her and many other Christians around the world about The Bible Fraud all result in the Bible being quoted as the ultimate reference for the apparent "words of God," and therefore the basis for their arguments. The problem lies in that they believe the Bible is infallible. [...]

As Tony points out, the history of our 'genuine' Bibles is a convoluted one. Firstly we cannot be sure that we have the full version as it was originally intended. In 1415 the Church of Rome took an extraordinary step to destroy all knowledge of two second century Jewish books that it said contained the true name of Jesus Christ. The Antipope Benedict XIII firstly singled out for condemnation a secret Latin treatise called "Mar Yesu" and then issued instructions to destroy all copies of the book of Elxai. The Rabbinic fraternity once held the destroyed manuscripts with great reverence for they were comprehensive original records reporting the life of Rabbi Jesus.

Later, Pope Alexander VI ordered all copies of the Talmud destroyed, with the Spanish Grand Inquisitor Tomas de Torquemada (1420-98) responsible for the elimination of 6,000 volumes at Salamanca alone. Solomon Romano (1554) also burnt many thousands of Hebrew scrolls and, in 1559, every Hebrew book in the city of Prague was confiscated. The mass destruction of Jewish books included hundreds of copies of the Old Testament and caused the irretrievable loss of many original handwritten documents.

The oldest text of the Old Testament that survived, before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls was said to be the Bodleian Codex (Oxford), which was dated to circa 1100 AD. In an attempt by the church to remove damaging Rabbinic information about Jesus Christ from the face of the earth, the Inquisition burnt 12,000 volumes of the Talmud. In 1607, forty-seven men (some records say fifty four) took two years and nine months to re-write the Bible and make it ready for press. It was, by the order of King James, issued with a set of personal 'rules' the translators were to follow. Upon its completion in 1609, it was handed over to the King James for his final approval. However, "It was self evident that James was not competent to check their work and edit it, so he passed the manuscripts onto the greatest genius of all time... Sir Francis Bacon" The first English language manuscripts of the Bible remained in Bacon's possession for nearly a year. During that time ... "he hammered the various styles of the translators into the unity, rhythm, and music of Shakespearean prose, wrote the prefaces and created the whole scheme of the Authorized Version. At the completion of the editing, King James ordered a 'dedication to the King' to be drawn up and included in the opening pages. He also wanted the phrase 'Appointed to be read in the churches' to appear on the title page. The King James Bible is considered by many today to be the 'original' Bible and therefore 'genuine' and all later revisions simply counterfeits forged by 'higher critics'. Others think the King James Bible is 'authentic' and 'authorized' and presents the original words of the authors as translated into English from the 'original' Greek texts. However, as Tony points out, the 'original' Greek text was not written until around the mid fourth century and was a revised edition of writings compiled decades earlier in Aramaic and Hebrew. Those earlier documents no longer exist and the Bibles we have today are five linguistic removes from the first bibles written. What was written in the 'original originals' is quite unknown. It is important to remember that the words 'authorized' and 'original', as applied to the Bible do not mean 'genuine', 'authentic' or 'true'.

By the early third century, it became well noted that a problem was occurring . politics! In 251AD, the number of Presbyter's (roving orator or priest) writings had increased dramatically and bitter arguments raged between opposing factions about their conflicting stories. According to Presbyter Albius Theodoret (circa 255), there were "more than two hundred" variant gospels in use in his time. In 313, groups of Presbyters and Biscops (Bishops) violently clashed over the variations in their writings and "altar was set against altar" in competing for an audience and territory. [...]

Comments on Adams' article on Rense.com are along the following lines:

Comment Alton Raines 6-21-5; While few, even Roman Catholics, would argue that there have indeed been both Popes of questionable, if not evident rancor to the faith and to morals in history, likewise few would argue that there have been upheavals of church politics of every variety imaginable in 1800+ years, some of which has effected church function and even doctrine to this day. An imperfect church hierarchy does not ipso facto mean everything about the Lord Jesus Christ or the Bible is a lie or fabrication!

The foundation stone of Bushby's erratic, nonsensically woven tale of two Jesii is conjecture and wild imagination, at best, having a remarkably embarrassing lack of evidence and/or reference materials for any given statement or postulation. This is typical of the current rash of De- Christers who are dead set on confounding the issues surrounding who Jesus/Y'shua of Nazareth "really" was and locking that element into centuries of both real and unsubstantiated accounts of church malfeasance (some authentic, most invented, almost all irrelevant to the issue of Biblical veracity). Most such disastrous doctrinal defects wound up in 'catechisms', not holy scripture (though sadly, some to this day regard the two as equal) [...]

The Bible Fraud is just that. A fraud.

Comment Tim Rivera 6-22-5: re. "Behind The Bible Fraud - ..." by Robert Adams, posted at http://www.rense.com/general66/hide.htm Please forgive the length of what follows, but typically it is a much more difficult (and involved) matter to give rebuttal than it is to make assertions. Rather than reading the pseudo-scholarly works that are all the rage on this topic (and those related to it - ala "The Da Vinci Code"), the author of this piece would have been better served to have actually read CREDIBLE sources on this topic; namely, reading the polemics/apologies which surrounded the matter discussed at the Council of Nicea (which sadly, is a favourite point of attack for enthusiastic, but terribly ill-informed new-agers and so called "free thinkers"). You'll have to forgive me if this sounds presumptuous, but I can hardly believe someone who is actually familiar with the history of this period (whether a Christian or not; religious or secular in outlook) and has read primary sources on the context in which the Council of Nicea occured, could have written such an incredibly unfortunate article. [...]

Thus the idea that the big bad "Council of Nicea" was assembled to determine what Christianity in it's most basic sense amounts to, is ridiculous. Indeed, for many moderns (for whom "ideas" are not something important enough to get worked up over) much of the debate before, during, and after the Council of Nicea can seem tedious and like hair splitting - which round aboutly, demonstrates that what Christianity in it's basics "was", including it's sacred books (since this was what the "Bible" is - a library, not a single book), was not so controversial by the time 325 A.D. rolled around. The author also makes another fatal error - the confounding of the Roman Catholic Church with the "Church of Nicea", and anachronistically reading the absurdities and excesses of later "Papism" upon this "Nicean Church". The fact of the matter is, those assembled at Nicea would not have recognized what the local Roman Church became in later centuries - indeed, the Bishops of Rome contemporary to that period would not recognize the "Church of the Crusades" or the pretended "infalliblity" of the 19th century Popes as her own. If you want to see descendents of "Nicene" Christianity, you'd be better off going to Greece, Russia, or Egypt, than looking to later Rome, which by their lights, represents a false, schismatic church, not the "Catholic Church" proper. IOW, for all of the pretense of open mindedness, the author has taken an extremely narrow view of the topic - and in fact, is guilty of buying into the anachronistic propaganda of the Vatican itself (which tries to present itself as the "ancient church", when in reality it's a schism from the Orthodox Church of the East, which to this day has a nominal membership in the hundreds of millions, though is largely unknown to westerners.)

Comment Marcea Ray 6-22-5: I was surprised to see Robert Adam's article describing, and in support of, the Bible Fraud. I haven't researched the sources of the assertions that the author of the Bible Fraud uses as "proof" for his claims, so I hesitate to offer up an opinion, but from Adam's article, and the responses of Jack Manuelian and Alton Raines, it seems as if the Bible Fraud is yet another outrageous attempt to discredit the Bible and Christianity, but this isn't anything new or unusual, it's been going on for two thousand years now. [...]

Comment Mohamed Imtiaz 6-22-5:I am a Muslim and was very interested in reading the article "Behind The Bible Fraud - What Was The Church Trying To Hide? By Robert Adams New Dawn Magazine.com However, after reaching where he talked about Jesus (peace be with him), I realized that Mr. Robert Adams is trying to deceive your audiences. Our source of guidance is the Quraan. We believed what has been revealed to Jesus (peace be with him) is from Allah. We also have evidences proving the Bible of today is not in its original form and has been altered. What the Muslims cannot tolerate is the blasphemy Mr. Adams is leveling against Allah's Messenger.(paragraph 20-21)

The Holy Quraan says:
1. Jesus (peace be with him) was born from virgin Mary (peace be with her).
2. Jesus (peace be with him) was never married.
3. Jesus (peace be with him) was never a thief.
4. Jesus (peace be with him) was never murdered nor crucified. He is alive and will be sent back to earth near the end of this world. There is an empty spot alongside the grave of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). That's where Jesus (peace be with him) will be buried. [...]

Comment Vencislav Bujic 6-22-5: My comment to Robert Alves:

The so-called "Josephus paragraph" is a forgery, there is excelent web page about paragraph and about other "non-Christian" testimony of Jesus:

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html

Comment Matt Vooro 6-24-5 The bible is a collection of ancient writings going back thousands of years. To some degree it describes the history of man. It provides in allegory, prophecy, law, epistle, parables and poetry, the belief system of the Christian faith.

The specific books included in the bible were cherry picked out of many similar books. Once Christianity became a state religion, various changes and deletions were made in 325 AD during the first Council of Nicea. These changes continued well into the 12th Century. Entire books were rejected including books that included topics like reincarnation and the multi-dimensional nature of man, his soul and his spirit. All topics, which were in conflict with the official state views, were simply rejected whether they were true or not.

The fact that we are all sons and daughters of the Holy Spirit and that we can all achieve Christ Consciousness as Jesus had done, did not fit the state controlled belief system even though this was the real message of Jesus. From that time on the teachings changed from people teaching themselves to worshipping the man Jesus who would forgive them their sins. Whereas the original Christians were told that they were responsible for everything that they did, suddenly they were told that Jesus came to die for their sins. [...]

Some of our religious institutions are literally holding their followers in a time warp that is several thousand years old. They not only ignore modern science and medicine but also new spiritual understanding and revelations. When did our church last teach us anything new about the magnificence of our multi-dimensional soul or spirit? Have they ever explained during their service what a soul really is and how to communicate with our soul? Christ Consciousness is something that every individual can achieve and not only Jesus. One does not need a middleman to communicate with ones own God presence within, our Soul. This was Jesus' real message. Churches can help but ultimately we need to find this Spirit within ourselves. Some Bible critics claim that biblical story of Jesus is a collection of old myths which were resurrected around the story of Jesus during the Roman Empire to help stop the various religious wars in the various parts of the their empire. These critics point to many similar myths associated with Horus of Egypt, Mithra of Persia, Krishna of India, Promethus of Greece and many others. Many of today's sacred holidays were already pagan days of worship before the time of Jesus. Perhaps all great past teachers struggled under similar circumstances in order to get their message across.

Others have difficulty in accepting some sections of the bible that:

1] Teach its believers to fear God rather than love god
2] Teach that God requires animal and blood sacrifice
3] Tell that God waged ethnic cleansing by supporting a certain race only which was the so called "chosen people '
4] Tell that God openly waged and supported war and killing
5] Portrayed God as angry, jealous, emotional and revengeful
6] Placed women lower than men

Some critics feel that these sections were the actual teachings of that time but the God referred to in these sections were gods spelled with a small 'g' or other powerful entities who pretended to be God. The people of that time did not know any different and referred to all these as God. Perhaps various cosmic races interacted with man during those times. Perhaps parts of the real story of Christ's life on earth are somewhat different from the story told in the Bible. Perhaps the complete and true story is yet to be revealed. Perhaps Christianity is not yet ready for the truth. Sometime the myth becomes stronger than the truth and the people refuse to accept the truth even when they are shown it. [...]

[Since 9-11] the Constitution has gone from an objective to be satisfied to an obstacle to national defense. . . . As these changes mount, at what point do we become other than a free and democratic nation?
- George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, Los Angeles Times, January 2, 2003

Civil liberties had their origin and must find their ultimate guarantee in the faith of the people. If that faith should be lost, five or nine [votes on the Supreme Court] could not long supply its want.
- Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, Douglas v. City of Jeannette (1943)

On June 6, in a closed-door session, the Senate Intelligence Committee approved a bill that, if Congress and the president agree (and he will), would dramatically expand the FBI's powers under the Patriot Act to issue secret administrative subpoenas for an unprecedented range of personal records - without having to go to a judge.

The FBI will write its own subpoenas - just as British customs officials in the colonies did before the American Revolution - using general search warrants (writs of assistance) to go into homes and offices at will to look for contraband. These raids so inflamed 18th-century Americans that the "general search warrant" was one of the precipitating causes of our revolution.

The ACLU's superb Washington staff bluntly explains the impact of the proposal: "This power would let agents seize personal records [it deems relevant to an intelligence investigation] from medical facilities, libraries, hotels, gun dealers, banks and any other businesses, without having to appear before a judge, and without any evidence that the people whose records are collected are involved in any criminal activity."

If the FBI is targeting you in its dragnet operations for some amorphous connection to terrorism (do you go to a mosque or organize against the war?) you will not know that your personal records have been seized - and put into any number of data banks.

Since these are secret administrative subpoenas, the third-party record holders who get them can't tell you what they've given up to the FBI.

While this unleashing of the FBI was being debated at a May 24 open hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee, several Democrats asked a highly pertinent question of a witness, Valerie Caproni, general counsel for the FBI: Is there any evidence that the delay - caused by having to get a judge's approval for a subpoena - has ever harmed national security?

This was her answer: "Can we show you, because of delays, that a bomb went off? No, but it could happen tomorrow. It could."

Comment: This sounds a lot like, "Can we show you that Saddam is prepared to use weapons of mass destruction against the US? No, but it could happen tomorrow. It could."

But hey, it works! Why mess with a good thing?

The administration's shadow Constitution, made up as Bush goes along, trashes the rule of law on the basis of what might happen.

That's how so many thousands of Japanese Americans were herded into internment camps during the Second World War as the army gave false prospective information to President Franklin Roosevelt and the Supreme Court. If anything like 9-11 happens here again, startled speculation, fueled by fear, could bring back those internment camps - with a multicultural range of inmates.

Listening to the FBI general counsel's testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee was Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein of California, who, until that moment, had been a stalwart defender of the Patriot Act, much to the administration's delight. Hearing Valerie Caproni justify awarding the FBI such overwhelming authority that this administration had previously failed to get through, Senator Feinstein was somewhat shaken.

"This is a very broad power," she said, "with no check on that power. It's carte blanche for a fishing expedition." She got it!

Because that vote was taken at a closed session of the Intelligence Committee, the yeas and nays have not been officially revealed. (And George W. Bush calls this "a transparent democracy"!) But I have learned that four Democrats voted against the bill as a whole, including the FBI's expanded administrative subpoenas. They were Dianne Feinstein, Jon Corzine of New Jersey, Carl Levin of Michigan, and Ron Wyden of Oregon.

Republican Pat Roberts of Kansas, the aggressive chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, moved this bill fast to steal a march on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which also has oversight authority over the Justice Department and its FBI.

Among the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, ranking minority member Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Richard Durbin of Illinois, and Russell Feingold of Wisconsin - the latter being the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001 - should mount strong opposition to the administrative subpoenas and other parts of the bill.

For example, empowering the FBI to get from postal inspectors, The New York Times reports, the "names, addresses and all other material appearing on the outside of letters sent to or from people connected to foreign intelligence investigations."

(These mail covers also fish widely, and with little meaningful judicial supervision. It's the FBI that guesses how you may be "connected.")

Lisa Graves, the admirably knowledgeable senior counsel for legislative strategy at the ACLU, says the Intelligence Committee, fearing this bill would lose in the Judiciary Committee, quickly moved to get it out first as a fait accompli, so those who oppose it can be charged with being "soft on terror."

In the May 18 Counterpunch, Lisa Graves adds: "I guess now we'll have to see whether the people on the Judiciary Committee will have the political courage to stand up on this."

I also wonder how long before New York senators Chuck Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton address themselves to these secret FBI vacuum cleaners of information.

And it would be useful if the so-called Democratic leadership (Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the strutting Howard Dean) would join Bob Barr of the American Conservative Union in saying loud and clear that this bill "would essentially render the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizure completely meaningless." To be continued.

Warren Apel, a civil libertarian, has produced a website, The Burning Flag Page, which does an excellent job of explaining the threat to liberty that is posed by the Congressional move to ban flag-burning. I agree with him wholeheartedly.

As he notes, the proper way to dispose of old, worn-out US flags, including those little things handed out as party favors or displayed from car windows, is burning--something Boy Scout troops often do as a public service. In other words, burning the flag itself is not a crime. It's what the person who burns one is "thinking" at the time of the act.

So what Congress is attempting to do with the Flag Amendment, is to make thinking certain things a crime, punishable by prison. [...]

My own perspective on this is the result of my having lived for over a year in the People's Republic of China, a country where flags are nearly as ubiquitous as they are in the U.S., and where desecration of the flag is a severly punishable offense. Living in China, I never thought I'd see the day that my own country would sink to this level of jingoism and thought control.

As the child of two WW II veterans and the grandson of a Silver Star recipient from WW I, I understand the pain that burning the flag in protest might cause to some who put their lives on the line defending America, or to their relatives. But the answer is not to adopt the totalitarian tactics of a nation like China; it is to honor the high-minded thoughts of the founders of this nation, who made it clear in the First Amendment of the Constitution that Congress would take no action limiting freedom of speech. [...]

The flag amendment which just passed the House by a huge margin, and which may pass in the Senate this time around and even become a part of the Constitution, was predictable. After all, the last refuge of a scoundrel is patriotism, and the scoundrels infesting the capital, who put this country into an unwinnable and pointless war based upon lies, along with the gutless sycophants in Congress who backed them, are now being increasingly called to account by an American public finally grown weary of the war and the lies.

What to do? Dredge up that moldering corpse--the flag protection amendment.

The joke is that the flag is desecrated daily for commercial purposes, waving proudly in front of the corporate headquarters of war profiteers like Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Bechtel, GE, Westinghouse and Exxon Mobil, and the homes of tax cheats like disgraced Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski. It decorates all manner of commercial products from the backsides of women's shorts to a line of patriotic condoms.

None of this abuse of the national symbol bothers the right-wing charlatans in Washington. Only burning the thing.

The late Yippie co-founder Abbie Hoffman had Congress' number when he responded to a subpoena to testify in Washington wearing a shirt rendered from a cut-up American flag.

What a pathetic joke it will be for future schoolchildren, reading the high-minded and carefully crafted words of the Constitution, with its careful detailing of the branches of government, the delineation of powers, the enumeration of the rights of the citizenry and the banning of slavery, when they come to this cheap amendment telling them that the beautiful First Amendment guaranteeing free speech which they read earlier is not really true: If they want to protest government actions by burning a piece of red, white and blue cloth, they can be locked up.

And all to cover up the mendacity and cowardice of a gang of war criminals in 2005.

WASHINGTON - The Internal Revenue Service is investigating whether unauthorized people gained access to sensitive taxpayer and bank account information but has not yet exposed any privacy breaches, an official said on Friday.

The U.S. tax agency -- whose databases include suspicious activity reports from banks about possible terrorist or criminal transactions -- launched the probe after the Government Accountability Office said in April that the IRS "routinely permitted excessive access" to the computer files.

The GAO team was able to tap into the data without authorization, and gleaned information such as bank account holders' names, social security numbers, transaction values, and any suspected terrorist activity. It said the data was at serious risk of disclosure, modification or destruction.

"There is no evidence that anyone who was not authorized accessed the data outside the GAO," said Sheri James, a spokeswoman for the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), which is working with the IRS to address the concerns of the GAO, the investigative arm of Congress.

"The assessment remains ongoing at this time," James said.

IRS officials were not immediately available for comment.

FinCEN is responsible for administering the Bank Secrecy Act, under which banks must file suspicious activity reports on transactions they believe could be linked to money laundering or terrorism financing. The IRS stores this data for FinCEN.

As their name suggests, these reports are filed based on suspicions, not necessarily proof, and the vast majority never lead to investigations or prosecutions.

Unauthorized access to the information held by the IRS raises concerns about the privacy rights and civil liberties of innocent banking clients as well as ordinary taxpayers.

From October, when FinCEN rolls out a new computer system called BSA Direct, the agency will for the first time take control of all BSA data from filing to dissemination, which it hopes will significantly bolster data security.

Taxpayer data will remain with the IRS, which the Treasury says is addressing its "computer security deficiencies."

Concerns about privacy violations through weak computer security are mounting in the United States, where a string of companies this year have reported stolen or misappropriated customer data, including Bank of America Corp., ChoicePoint Inc. and Reed Elsevier .

Since ChoicePoint announced in February that it mistakenly sold 145,000 consumer profiles to a ring of identity thieves, dozens of other organizations, from banks to universities, have announced security breaches of their own.

We have clearly entered a new phase of our involvement in Iraq - public opinion is turning against the administration and the president will be devoting a good bit of his time trying to convince the American public that our policy should not change. This is the right time to take a close look at myths and realities about Iraq.

Comment: Is this really FOX???

I approach this subject as a Democrat who voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein (search) on two separate occasions: In 1991 when Bush 41 was president and in 2002 when Bush 43 sought congressional approval to launch the current military campaign.

Myth: Saddam Hussein was a part of the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States and possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Reality: Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, in one of his last interviews before leaving office, made it clear that Saddam was not involved in Sept. 11. Additionally, we thoroughly searched Iraq for weapons of mass destruction and could not find any. The administration is now justifying our involvement in Iraq on the basis of nation-building (democratization) - something President Bush derided during the 2000 campaign.

Myth: We did not need a large occupying force after initial combat. Vice President Dick Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press" in March of 2003 that it was inaccurate to say that we would need several hundred thousand troops in Iraq after military operations ceased. "I think that's an overstatement," he said.

Reality: Former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki had told Congress that we would need a force of at least 200,000 to occupy Iraq. Gen. Shinseki, who had been responsible for our successful peacekeeping effort in Bosnia, was correct. By not committing enough troops to Iraq, we were unable to seal the borders and this made it possible for foreign terrorists to enter the country and help launch the current waves of attacks against our military.

Myth: Democrats have not supported the War on Terror.

Reality: Democrats first proposed the new Department of Homeland Security and strongly supported our efforts against terrorists in Afghanistan, where Usama bin Laden was believed to be hiding after Sept. 11. A significant number of Democrats voted to authorize force against Saddam, and Democrats have overwhelmingly voted to fund our efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Comment: Yes indeed, and that's part of the problem: There is no real organized resistance to the fascist policies of Bush and Co.

Myth: There is a partisan divide over our policy in Iraq, with Democrats opposing the president and Republicans supporting him.

Reality: A number of Democrats have raised questions about whether the administration has a clear plan for future involvement in Iraq, but leading Democrats are not calling for unconditional withdrawal.

For example, former President Clinton has opposed a hard-and-fast timetable for withdrawal. And now some Republicans are raising serious questions about the wisdom of Bush's approach. Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., has called for a specific timetable for withdrawal, starting in October of 2006. Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., has said, "the White House is completely disconnected from reality" about Iraq. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has added that he is not as optimistic as the White House about our current progress in Iraq.

Where does all of this leave us today? There is no question that Saddam was a tyrant and that the Middle East is better off with him no longer in power. Also, a democratic Iraq could have a real impact on the future of the entire Middle East. If nation-building (democratization) had been the administration's real objective from the beginning, it should have leveled with the American public at the outset rather than relying on now-discredited claims of weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi involvement in Sept. 11.

Comment: The author seems to find nothing wrong with the idea that the US has the right to "democratize" other nations - not to mention the fact that true democracy, by definition, cannot be imposed on a people.

The American public is perfectly capable of dealing with the truth. The Bush administration needs to level with the public about the difficulty of the job ahead in Iraq rather than making general statements indicating that all is well. We will stay the course in Iraq if the country is convinced that Bush has a realistic plan for the future. It's time for less myth and more reality.

Martin Frost served in Congress from 1979 to 2005, representing a diverse district in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area. He served two terms as chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, the third-ranking leadership position for House Democrats, and two terms as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Frost serves as a regular contributor to FOX News Channel. He holds a Bachelor of Journalism degree from the University of Missouri and a law degree from the Georgetown Law Center.

Slowly, grudgingly, the American people are being compelled by reality to accept the truth: The Bush administration has led this country into a quagmire in Iraq. The result: in the latest poll, only 42 percent approve of the way Bush is handling his job.

On Iraq, the majority of Americans has gone from delusion to denial to the awareness, now just dawning, that they were misled and that the war is a tragic mistake. The main reason for this new and still emerging consciousness is that this war, at the outset opposed by almost the entire world but supported overwhelmingly by Americans, has cost more in lives and money than its enthusiastic backers, among the blindly patriotic masses and the cunning politicians, ever imagined.

It is one thing to watch gleefully, like in a video game, tens of thousands of Iraqi troops, hopelessly outgunned and fleeing, being slaughtered by weapons fired safely from above or afar. But this is not the Gulf War, and it is a far different thing to see, despite the official ban on photographic images, the mounting toll of your own dead and wounded, maimed by crude but lethal weapons.

One thing is to go to war with the legitimacy of the United Nations, a real military coalition, and the financial support of many countries ­ and with the justifiable purpose of defeating and expelling an invader. It is something else to w