"Clergymen were crucified on the churches’s holy gates, shot, strangled, doused in water in winter until they froze to death," said Mr. Yakovlev.
      His faith in human nature must have been severely shaken as he and his commission associates reviewed the dossiers of Stalin’s victims before sending them on to the Russian Supreme Court, which was expected to reverse the original guilty verdicts.
      Mr. Yakovlev told the London Times: "Most of the names were obviously political figures who were tried, sentenced to death and shot in the various blocks of repression like Trotsky, Bukharin, and so on. But sometimes a name would crop up that was completely out of context and we would have to search why they had been killed."
      In one case, the victim was the neighbor of the secretary to Lazar Kaganovich, one of Stalin’s henchmen. His secretary typed out the daily death list and she added her neighbor’s name to secure the flat when it was abruptly vacated.
      Such behavior was not unusual. Arkady Vaksberg, the biographer of Andre Vishinsky, Stalin’s notorious prosecutor during the infamous Moscow trials, found a document detailing his phone call to a Kremlin bureaucrat asking for the transfer to Vishinsky of the dacha of a Soviet general he had just convicted of "treason" and who was to be shot that afternoon.
      Mr. Yakovlev is pressing the Russian government to erect 

a memorial to the victims of Soviet repression on Lubyanka Square in Moscow because "this horrible place is where the mechanism of Stalin’s evil deeds was launched." But there is as much chance that such a memorial will be built as that V.I. Lenin’s tomb in Red Square will be demolished.
      It would be a supreme irony that the American campaign, supported by an act of Congress, to build a D.C. memorial to the victims of communism would be successful and fail in Russia. But that is to be expected. The Russian government is swamped with former KGB agents, including President Vladimir Putin himself.
      Will there be a sign of gratitude at the work which Mr. Yakovlev and his commission have accomplished in these 13 years? There will not be because the Russian government and popular opinion cannot or will not confront the 70 horrifying years of the Bolshevik Revolution. Some Russians even look back nostalgically at the Stalin years, refusing to acknowledge, Mr. Yakovlev wrote a few years ago, the crimes of the Soviet past.
      Such a state of denial is not so different from that of the extant left-liberalism credo which, by some metaphysical twist, regards America’s victory in the Cold War as a defeat and the Cold War itself as an illegitimate American aggression against a land that might have developed into a socialist paradise had it not been for American "imperialism."
      —The Washington Times, March 17, 2002, p. B4

In a lengthy article on May 20, ’02, The New York Times eulogized the great evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, who died in May at the age of 60. The world of biology and paleontology will surely miss Mr. Gould, as will his worldwide fan-club who kept buying his many books, which let them in on the inside story of evolution and related topics.
      Why should I, an Orthodox rabbi who believes that the world is 6000 years old, write about Mr. Gould? He is my hero. As the Times pointed out, Gould believed in evolution, but he told the facts as they are. Gould was great enough to pronounce the secular heresy that there is no biological process to produce evolution. If people evolved, as Gould believed they did, it was an atypical accident that would only 

occur over extremely long periods. The importance of this cannot be overemphasized. Evolution is not a scientific process, said Mr. Gould. "If the Tree of Life was planted anew," said he, "life would not form as we know it." Gould stood evolution on its head. It has no scientific basis, because "accidents" are not science.
      Actually, the world of science is dealing a lot with accidents these days. Cosmology was once awash with four theories on the origin of the moon. All institutions of higher learning taught them with great enthusiasm. When Americans went to the moon and brought back rocks, all four theories vanished and were replaced by the latest "accident" theory. Accidents, of course, are not science. They are not processes that replicate in the laboratory or any other place, and are even akin to fantasy.
      Scientists had known for a long time that the fossil record does not support Darwinian theory. If Darwin were right, the fossil record should be clearly structured from lower to higher, but it isn’t. Mr. Gould, like the boy who declared the emperor naked, finally broke with the mumbo-mumbo and 

said it like it is. The fossil record opposes Darwinian biological evolutionary process.
      When I was a young student, an Orthodox rabbi, Avigder Miller, wrote a lengthy book refuting the evolutionists. He quoted at length from the scientific journals that questioned the secular orthodoxy. That was 30 years ago. All of us asked, "If this is true, where are the scientists? Can they support lies?" Only last year did a Catholic researcher publicize the fact that a major evolutionary tenet, that human embryos have tails, is a complete lie. Darwin had an apostle, Ernst Haeckel, who preached a theory called biogenetic law, or recapitulation theory. Haeckel said that all humans in the process of gestation go through the phases of evolution. At one point, they have a tail. To impress people, Haeckel used some big words, "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." Ontogeny, or ontogenesis, is the formation of living embryos. Phylogeny is the supposed evolutionary development of species. Thus, Haeckel taught that the baby in embryo form went through stages similar to earlier animals. This lie was taught in Harvard, Hopkins and all medical schools for 100 years. Only very recently did people bother to find out that it wasn’t true. Many people knew that evolution invoked fraud. Only Gould, however, said, in the name of science, that there is no scientific process for evolution, only accident, and an out-of-the-ordinary accident at that.
      How strange that any scientist could believe in evolution, and in a biological process that advances an organism from lower to higher organization. Entropy, a principle of thermodynamics, declares that nature declines and does not improve. Just as your desktop clutters and becomes disorganized, so do all biological and physical systems decline and eventually lose function. How then can a scientist believe in evolution, a process of turning an organism into something higher? As one evolutionist stated when faced with a similar challenge to Darwin: "What is the alternative?" If it is G-d and creation, we will believe in anything. Evolutionists thus became fanatics, believing against all rational science in a process that wasn’t.
      Science itself provides facts that challenge evolution. First of all, it declares that the world is only some 12 billion years old. That is, from the first Big Bang to today, is only about 12 billion years. For an accident such as Gould’s evolution to happen, for people to spring from the bleak radioactive crashings of outer space, would require an incredible string of coincidences. Could they take place in a mere 12 billion years?

      A recent study showed that in the entire universe, the conditions (due to radioactivity, the crashing of meteors, and the requirements of the makeup of life-sustaining planetary orbs) prohibit the formation of life, except on earth. How many "accidents" had to take place before the cosmic plasma turned into quarks and electrons? How many "accidents" had to take place before the solar system formed? How many "accidents" had to take place before the earth landed exactly where it needed to be relative to the sun? How many "accidents" had to take place before the chemicals of the arid rock produced water, and living cells? How many "accidents" had to take place before these cells became RNA and then DNA? Remember also that science claims that there were many setbacks to evolution, so that entire ages of ice and chaos destroyed the earlier "accidents." Did all of these "accidents" and destruction produce a human being with 30 billion perfectly coordinated genes in a mere 12 billion years? If accidents in between ice ages and meteor bombings produced one gene with its incredible marvel a year, it would take 30 billion years.
      Accidents that put all 30 billion of them together would be impossible even to contemplate, unless you are a secular fanatic like the professors of evolution.
      Where are the millions of life forms predicted by the evolutionists all over the cosmos? Anyone listening out there? (G-d doesn’t count, of course.) Life could not form without oceans, because ocean waters hold enormous deposits of carbon dioxide, which would kill life if released. Thus, there had to be an earth with oceans. This earth had to be exactly the right removal from the sun, not too close, not too far. How did this incredible accident happen in just 12 billion years, that a chunk of rock, with oceans, just swished around the sun in the proper orbit, and then began producing complex life?
      Can anyone who reads about DNA, the incredible team play of 30 billion genes, the constant splitting of the double helix ladder so its rungs fall apart and its bases rejoin producing more and more cells, believe in accidental evolution?
      Where are our ancestors? The New York Public Library Science Desk Reference, page 405-6, presents the embarrassing "scientific" thoughts on that. To quote one passage, "Theories on the evolution of humans and the dates of their existence are highly debated." And, "Because of a gap in the human fossil records, humankind’s lineage is relatively difficult to chart from about 10 million years ago."

      The New York Public Library Science Desk Reference, page 93, tells us that there is evolution going on today. A white moth in England turned black, because it knew that being white was no good. The factories made walls black with soot, so the moths, in order to survive and not be seen, turned black. Sounds impressive? I remember reading this discovery in Scientific American magazine 30 years ago. However, the article noted that the chemicals in soot, when injected into the white moths, turned them black. If you are a true believer, don’t let things like that stop you from believing in evolution.
      By the standards of fraud and lies that pass for evolutionary science, Gould was an honest broker. He said that there was no biological process and, even though he accepted the accidental theory, he declared it to be a far-fetched and atypical thing, unlikely to have happened and surely unlikely to happen elsewhere or again. Such talk, of course, strengthens the hands of creationists like me. However, I have another hero in the scientific world who strengthens my religious beliefs: Albert Einstein.
      Einstein’s teachings in the early twentieth century about relativity were studied throughout the world, and someone, a Dr. Friedmann, discovered that Einstein’s ideas proved Creation! Einstein was shocked. Such an idea turned science upside down, so Einstein refused to accept this without a struggle, and developed a cosmic constant to recast his theory without creation. Later, in 1929, however, the red shift in the stars were discerned by astronomer Edwin Hubble, who declared that the universe is expanding, and that nebulae farther away in space are going faster than those near the center of the cosmic orb. This proof of the expansion of the universe convinced Einstein, and he declared that his refusal to accept the Big Bang was his greatest mistake. Science proves Creation! Not bad, for secular science.
      The Big Bang is far more complicated than the creation or evolution of man. The Big Bang was not water and rock turning into people. The Big Bang was a tiny speck, tinier than can be described, that contained in it the entire mass and energy of the cosmos. The Big Bang was not an event in time or space. Without the Big Bang, before it, and in those places where the matter in the Big Bang had not yet expanded, there was no time and no space. There was nothing. Where did time, space, energy and matter in the Big Bang come from? Come on fellows; don’t tell me it was an accident. It’s lucky that Stephen Gould was a biologist and paleontologist and not a cosmologist. What would he have said to his colleagues who refuse to answer who made the Big Bang?
      Modern scientists are being squeezed by science into considering spirituality. David Bohm and Karl Pribram are playing my song, although they would deny it. If David 

Bohm believes in the process of life and matter being guided by some force above time, he doesn’t call it G-d; he calls it the super-implicate. Tell me, David, if there is a super-implicate, as you suggest, calling out to all of the particles and energies that exist, to bring them to higher challenge and perfection, why is there imperfection? More important, how can entropy, the guarantee of natural decline of organization compete with this "super-implicate"? I call it G-d, and I say that scientifically. At least this way I avoid being sued for fraud.
      Aristotle was the first Western scientist. However, he created a science rooted in observation and intuitive application of systematic structure. Aristotle’s science was the same as a painting; it looked nice and it worked. Newton came along and declared modern physics. He broke with Aristotle, but although he won the battle, Aristotle might have won the war, at least, in a way, as we explain.
      Einstein writes that Newton’s First Law of Motion, that all motion is eternal, defies common sense and intuition. How can something be touched and nudged just a bit and travel forever? Where is the energy to provide eternal motion? To Newton, there is no difference between an object at rest and an object in motion. An object continues to do its thing, sitting or sailing, forever. Its velocity is always constant, unless another force interacts with it and changes the direction of force of motion. All scientists accept Newton’s Law, not because anybody understands it, but because the mathematics Newton put on paper work. Modern science is thus the rejection of Aristotle’s scientific logic as beauty and the reduction of science to cold and not-understood mathematics. Modern quantum theory is so illogical that even Einstein rebelled against its weird ideas. However, they do appeal to the mathematical computers, so people accept the modern ideas of quantum theory, while acknowledging that they are dizzying and far from beautiful in concept.
      People once hoped that science would pierce the veil of the finite and reveal Truth. Now, the computers are cranking out a new mishmash world that frightens humans with its incredible phenomena. As science goes deeper and deeper into the mush, something happens. The finite structure and limitations of life shudder and even collapse. Science thus turns to the black mystery of life and seeks to leapfrog the cold computers with spirituality.
      Mr. Gould deserves credit for breaking new ground in science and hastening the process whereby science will one day study facts without fanaticism. For those of us who fight the new "science" that supports pedophilia, and ignores large numbers of homosexuals who changed into heterosexuals, this will be most welcome.
      —Culture and Family Report, June 19, 2002

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is at it still, fighting to protect child pornographers from a Congress that wants to prevent them from taking over the Internet. This is no surprise since — presumably in defense of the First, Fifth and 14th amendments — the ACLU long has stood side by side with a pornography industry run by organized crime. This coincides with the ACLU’s indefatigable efforts to exile God and outlaw religion on public property in the United States. Any day now I expect an ACLU plea to the United Nations to declare the Supreme Court and the Congress unconstitutional because they begin all their sessions with a prayer, denied to others, by a chaplain paid with federal funds.
      There is nothing new about this. The ACLU has from its inception encouraged political and moral anarchy. This curious organization wraps itself in all kinds of lofty rhetoric designed to separate some of our more soft-headed financial nabobs from the coin of the realm. Meanwhile it prefers that no one smarten up the chumps about the aims and principles of its founder, Roger Baldwin, who wrote in 1935 that "Communism is the goal." In its early days, the ACLU was not shy about making known its agenda. In a kind of manifesto written for Soviet Russia Today, then one of the Kremlin’s major propaganda organs, Baldwin stated:
      "Those of us who champion civil liberties in the United States and who at the same time support the proletarian dictatorship of the Soviet Union are charged with inconsistency and insincerity. … If I aid the reactionaries to get free speech now and then, if I go outside the class struggle … it is only because those liberties help create a more hospitable atmosphere for working-class liberties. The class struggle is the central conflict of the world. … When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever. … We want also to look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, to talk a great deal about the Constitution" [italics Baldwin’s].
      Years ago, in working on a piece about the ACLU for the American Legion magazine, I focused on its own official declarations. In the 1930s, the ACLU published a pamphlet, Who’s Un-American?, that lumped the American Federation of Labor with "proto-fascism" and attacked "patriotic" organizations for wanting to "make it a crime to incite soldiers to disobey orders." It poked a finger at the mainstream media for such high crimes as "loyalty to private initiative [and] 

capitalist enterprise." Among the "un-Americans" listed were the Elks, whose members, it held, had "much in common" with Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini.
      In the war years the ACLU openly advocated "guilt by association" and argued that the First Amendment did not apply to those with whom it disagreed. Even columnist Walter Lippman, the liberal icon, would protest that "the directors of the [ACLU] have missed one opportunity after another to show that they really stand for what they profess, that they care for civil liberty as such [and] not merely because it is a convenience for communists" — a view seconded by most of organized labor. And the ACLU was perfectly happy when the government sought to regulate the Associated Press as a "common carrier" lacking the protection of the First Amendment.
      When 30 union leaders of Trotskyist persuasion were convicted under the Smith Act, the ACLU loudly applauded. But it was passionate in its condemnation when 12 Communist Party leaders were convicted under the same act. It said not a word in defense of Japanese-Americans thrown into internment camps during World War II, instead launching a full-throated attack on the Republican Party, U.S. business and conservative values.
      The ACLU moaned in the late 1940s that the FBI’s functions "have been expanded under laws penalizing opinions and associations, risking for the first time in our history the creation of a secret-police system." This was too much even for Morris Ernst, the ACLU’s general counsel, who denied the existence of any such laws and described the accusation as a rank libel.
      President Harry Truman’s loyalty order, the ACLU said, reflected "the widespread belief, unsupported by any evidence, that communists with a primary loyalty to Russia have infiltrated into many federal departments." The ACLU’s practice at membership meetings of booing, insulting and silencing members disturbed by some of its policies became notorious. The Judges and the Judged, a book on "blacklisting" in the communications media, was sponsored and financed by the ACLU. But in two newspaper articles Merle Pitzele, a member of the ACLU board, showed that it suppressed its own research and was "full of half-truths, distortions and lies." The ACLU blithely continued to promote the book.
      Much can be added to this catalogue, and I had some 6,000 words to do so in my piece for the American Legion. They demonstrated conclusively that the ACLU has little interest in civil liberties. Seeking its help in defending myself

continued on page 7

One of the most obvious indicators of liberal bias in the print press is the obituary page. This is where we find tributes to those whom left-wing editors regard as "brilliant," "gifted" or "authoritative" and why.
      The recent death of Stephen Jay Gould, famed Harvard zoologist and popular science writer, exemplifies how obituaries of public figures serve as a benchmark for liberal standards of distinction.
      Gould, who died of lung cancer May 20, received numerous flattering tributes in major daily newspapers. The Washington Post, New York Times and USA Today described Gould as a "distinguished," "brilliant" and "gifted" scientist. ABC News anchor Peter Jennings opened a Ned Potter segment on Gould by noting, "We were stunned to learn today that one of the country’s most widely read and most appreciated scientists has died. Stephen Jay Gould had a uniquely diverse and interesting career."
      Yet the one "uniquely diverse and interesting" aspect about Gould that Jennings and most obituary writers failed to mention was his neo-Marxist point-of-view. They carefully avoided what is widely known in scientific circles—that Gould’s political outlook damaged his credibility among the leading scientists in his own field.
      Oxford University’s Matt Ridley, respected scholar and biologist, said Gould suffered from "almost pathological logorrhea" and John Maynard Smith, the dean of evolutionary biologists, once wrote in the New York Review of Books that other evolutionary biologists "see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with."
      The coverage of Gould’s death underscores an interesting pattern in what the media elite regards as a flawlessly "brilliant" personality: a pedigree of unrepentant socialist ideology combined with a radical egalitarian and passionate commitment to "progressive" causes. (A Nexis search conducted a week after Gould’s death showed that only 13 of 164 articles mention his Marxist leanings.)
      Consider the coverage of other equally prominent scholars and why their obituaries differed from the gilded

assessment of Gould.
      When the eminent psychologist Hans J. Eysenck died, after a prolonged battle with a malignant brain tumor, the New York Times’ obituary described the highly influential psychologist as a "heretic in the field of psychotherapy" and one of the most "maddeningly perverse psychologists of his generation." Although the Times pointed out that Eysenck "published 80 books and 1,600 journal articles," the paper also noted in the same sentence how he "managed to offend a great many people."
      Such a distorted description begs the question: What standard is applied in making this determination? What is the nature of the offense? And what distinguishes Gould’s "prolific" career from Eysenck’s industrious output?
      Both were iconoclasts, but on opposite sides of the debate over intelligence testing. In his book Mismeasure of Man, Gould viewed IQ tests as being inherently discriminatory and "racist." As a recognized authority on intelligence testing, Eysenck defended the validity of IQ tests and the consequences of their measured outcomes. Setting aside the empirical aspects of their perspectives, the critical difference between them is that Gould was a rabid egalitarian and Eysenck wasn’t. Gould’s anti-testing sentiments fit hand-in-glove with the prevailing egalitarian mindset of the media elite.
      Likewise, the published obituaries of Edward Banfield, Friedrich Hayek, Richard Herrnstein, Robert Nozick, Murray Rothbard, and Ernest van den Haag reveal a pattern of critical skepticism that is absent from the obituaries of "maverick" leftists. With few exceptions, radical leftists like William Kunstler, Abbie Hoffman, and Benjamin Spock are looked upon as paragons of virtue in obituaries that either overlook or approve of their ideological perspectives. (The New York Times obituary on Kunstler described him as "championing…left-of-center causes.") Rarely are radical leftists viewed as "extremists," instead they are "community activists."
      The bias isn’t always flagrant. Sometimes it is subtle. Nonetheless, the way that some "distinguished" individuals are lionized while others are either ignored or scrutinized more critically reveals a great deal about the ideological outlook of journalists. It serves as a barometer for what the media elite itself believes.
      —Human Events, June 3, 2002, p. 16

Reverend Jerry Vines is the PC police’s enemy du jour.
      Vines is a past president of the Southern Baptist Convention and pastor of First Baptist Church in Jacksonville, Florida. In a June 10 address at a pastors’ conference in St. Louis, he described Muhammad as a "demon-possessed pedophile."
      This description is theologically and historically grounded. From a Baptist perspective, Muhammad was a false prophet; the revelations he proclaimed derived not from divine guidance but satanic manipulation, hence "demon-possessed." Muhammad also considered possession as the cause of revelation in the Hadith, a collection of his sayings.
      Regarding the charge of pedophilia, one of Muhammad’s wives was betrothed to him at six years old. The marriage was consummated when she was nine. Enough said.
      Islamic organizations predictably condemned Vines— "hate-filled and bigoted language," according to Ibrahim Hooper, communications director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR’s activities have included fundraising for the murderer Jamil Al-Amin, formerly known as H. Rap Brown.
      More significantly, the Anti-Defamation League released a condemnation of Vines on June 12. National Director Abraham H. Foxman called Vines’s remarks "offensive, demeaning, and damaging to the American ideals of religious diversity and intergroup civility."
      Of course, Islam isn’t big on inter-faith friendship. Sura 5:51 of the Quran enjoins, "Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number. God does not guide the wrongdoers."
      Foxman didn’t stop at condemning Vines, though, adding this smear against the Southern Baptist Convention:
      "Unfortunately, such deplorable, divisive rhetoric is not surprising coming from the leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention, which has a track record of denigrating and delegitimizing other religions. In 1996, at their annual meeting,

the Convention adopted a resolution to direct their "energies and resources" to the conversion of Jews. The group has published proselytizing guides, including one in 1999 targeting Jews on their High Holy Days."
      Notice how Foxman conflates evangelism with aggression ("targeting Jews").
      As a Jew, I don’t feel "targeted" by a Baptist who seeks to convert me. He’s simply acting on Matthew 28:19: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
      For Baptists to satisfy Foxman’s notion of religious decorum, all they have to do is stop being Baptists.
      Ironically Baptists such as Reverend Vines are among the staunchest defenders of Israel. One of the resolutions passed at the St. Louis conference affirmed support for Israel.
      Instead of bashing Reverend Vines and the Southern Baptist Convention, the Anti-Defamation League should speak out against the most anti-Zionist regime in the Western hemisphere: Cuba.
      The Southern Baptist Convention hasn’t equated Zionism with racism. Cuba has.
      The Southern Baptist Convention hasn’t equated Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon with Adolf Hitler. Cuba has.
      The Southern Baptist Convention hasn’t accused Israel of perpetrating a holocaust against Palestinians. Cuba has.
      The Southern Baptist Convention hasn’t glorified Yasser Arafat and trained Palestinian terrorists. Cuba has.
      The Southern Baptist Convention hasn’t euphemized suicide massacres as "attacks of Palestinian resistance activists in Israeli territory." Cuba has.
      And the Anti-Defamation League hasn’t issued so much as a press release condemning Cuban anti-Zionism. Mr. Foxman has plenty of criticism for Reverend Vines but zero for Fidel Castro’s efforts to Nazify the Jewish homeland and delegitimize it.
      When regimes like Saudi Arabia and Egypt Nazify Israel, the Anti-Defamation League promptly condemns the vulgar material. Why is it silent when Cuba is the source of vulgarity?
      If you would like to ask the Anti-Defamation League to explain its silence, please contact the regional office nearest you.
      —FrontPage Magazine, June 18, 2002

in a First Amendment case involving a lawsuit by Ralph Nader, its then Arab-American president answered with the most vicious and vituperative letter I ever have received.
      And no wonder, for the ACLU’s agenda still is that of Baldwin and its other founders. Who were they? Socialist  

Party patriarch Norman Thomas; Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, later chairman of the Communist Party; and Agnes Smedley, eventually exposed as a Soviet espionage agent in China. That, of course, is all quite legal. But perhaps someone should seek a ruling by the Food and Drug Administration compelling a proper labeling of the ACLU product.
      —Insight magazine, July 1-8, 2002, p. 48