Rush quoting you today Peter!

Great post!

This link attempts to explain how Planned Parenthood gets away with political ads: http:http://www.stealthpacs.org/profile.cfm?org_id=2835.

"Because Planned Parenthood's overall structure includes a 501(c)(4) entity, a 501(c)(3) entity, a federally regulated PAC and a 527 organization, it is difficult to determine which pots of money paid for which ads."

As president of an organization with 501c(3) status, I can tell you that If the non-profit Foundation arm of our organization does anything political we can lose or 501c(3) status.  However, the other part of our organization (which lacks 501c(3) status) is free to participate in politics.  There are actually several non-profit designations:

http://www.irs.gov/charities/nonprofits/article/0,,id=96178,00.html

http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html

I have been a huge fan of Natalie MacMaster for years.  I saw her play with her husband Donnell Leahy last year and could not believe the man's talent.  Their music, energy and charisma make for a great show. Leahy, the group, is amazing and I have to agree:  "talent, talent, talent".  If you ever get a chance to see Natalie or Leahy, or better yet see them together, GO!

Peter, I will download it to my iPad right now based on your rave review. I plan to get him to sign an actual book when he does his book signing In Roanoke in April.

I agree!

How about Virginia?

The doctor in my life tells me that it doesn't work. But what do neurosurgeons know about colds? Here is the scholarly review from Google: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=zicam&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=ws

The Journal of the American Medical Association says: "More than 800 additional reports of anosmia associated with the use of over-the-counter zinc-containing nasal products sold under the Zicam brand have been submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) since the agency demanded the products be withdrawn from the market, according to an analysis by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP)."

Anosmia is a loss of the sense of smell.

I think Nyquil and chicken soup are your best bets.

I am in the process for making chicken soup for the sick one in our house. Hope you feel better soon.

Here at Ricochet, as well as in the media, there has been a great deal of discussion regarding whether or not Imam Feisal is a moderate. It is an important discussion, as is the discussion about funding sources. Assume that he is a moderate, and that nothing about the funding sources can be tied to terrorism. What guarantee is there that the control of the mosque will remain in moderate hands? How do we prevent it from becoming another cell harboring terrorists?

I thought it was an excellent piece by Charles Krauthammer. In the Park 51 thread I mentioned what I thought was an important point to consider: "Bloomberg's implication is clear: If the proposed mosque were controlled by "insensitive" Islamist radicals either excusing or celebrating 9/11, he would not support its construction......as a practical matter, there's no guarantee that this couldn't happen in the future. Religious institutions in this country are autonomous. Who is to say that the mosque won't one day hire an Anwar al-Aulaqi -- spiritual mentor to the Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas Day bomber, and onetime imam at the Virginia mosque attended by two of the 9/11 terrorists?

An Aulaqi preaching in Virginia is a security problem. An Aulaqi preaching at Ground Zero is a sacrilege. "

Shouldn't we consider the fact that the mosque may not remain in "moderate" hands?

I think this train of thought has merit. Do you think the US is capable of voting for and enforcing restrictions on services to illegal immigrants?

Excellent piece by Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post today: Sacrilege at Ground Zero. In it, he raises a valid point: "Bloomberg's implication is clear: If the proposed mosque were controlled by "insensitive" Islamist radicals either excusing or celebrating 9/11, he would not support its construction......as a practical matter, there's no guarantee that this couldn't happen in the future. Religious institutions in this country are autonomous. Who is to say that the mosque won't one day hire an Anwar al-Aulaqi -- spiritual mentor to the Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas Day bomber, and onetime imam at the Virginia mosque attended by two of the 9/11 terrorists?

An Aulaqi preaching in Virginia is a security problem. An Aulaqi preaching at Ground Zero is a sacrilege. Or would the mayor then step in -- violating the same First Amendment he grandiosely pretends to protect from mosque opponents -- and exercise a veto over the mosque's clergy?"

Newt is definitely intelligent, but I think he carries way too much baggage to be considered as a serious candidate.

Richard Epstein and John Yoo, thank you so much for taking my question. I have to admit that I lean more towards George Will's view of the issue than Linda Chavez's. However, it seems that you are both on the other side of this one. On a further note, the WSJ today said that 1 in 12 babies born in the US in 2008 were born to illegal immigrants. I think those numbers are cause for concern.

I look forward to hearing others' responses. Always interesting here on Ricochet.

Thanks Emily. I look forward to hearing her response.

Ursula referred to an article you wrote - was it the Islamic Feminists article in the WSJ ? Since you interviewed her in person, I am wondering how you reconcile her opinion of the Raufs with all the other things we have read about them?

"The couple and other organizers, such as my friend Ameena Meer, an advertising executive who once dated Salman Rushdie, want a moderate imam at the mosque, and have found one in Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf.'

Is it your sense that Faisal Abdul Rauf is a moderate Imam?