Does John Ashcroft's 'Camp Plan' Actually Exist?: Did you know that John Ashcroft has announced that he intends to put "U.S. citizens he deems to be enemy combatants" into camps? Well best selling author Michael Moore has heard about it and it reminds him of the Nazi concentration camps...

"Meanwhile, Attorney General John Ashcroft proposed camps--and not the kind where you make 'Smores over a campfire--for US citizens who he deems enemy combatants. Detainees at these concentrated camps would be stripped of their Constitutional rights. With only two "enemy combatants" so far, we'll have to find some more soon to make it a really good, fun camp. All hail the mutterland!" (Cont)

(**Special Thanks to Justin Sodano from the Weigh-In for helping me get access to a story I needed for this one.**)

Our Souring Relationship With Europe: My three favorite columnists on the net are Ann Coulter, Mark Steyn, and Victor Davis Hanson. Hanson's latest editorial is laced with the excellent analysis and crisp writing that makes him a favorite of mine. Here's a little bit of Hanson on our faltering relationship with Europe...

"Europe is impotent in deed when it counts, but self-righteous in word when it does not - being as reluctant to confront evil in the flesh as it is ready to condemn it in the abstract. So far we are taking the greater risks, but getting none of the commensurate credit for undertaking such sacrifice. We must be as bold in our idealistic professions as we are unafraid to use force, conveying the message to the world that, unlike the EU or the U.N., we back pretensions with real soldiers. We live in a world, after all, where Europeans call an elected American president who is fighting killers a "cowboy," but use qualifiers like "but," "although," and "nevertheless" when referring to bringing to justice an outlaw like Saddam Hussein. It is time our president politely but firmly reminded the Europeans that utopianism is worthless unless they act - and their past record in using force to combat evil is dismal. They must realize that Europe is one American unilateral action away from the de facto dissolution of NATO: If we act alone in Iraq to remove a madman with terror weapons, while they heckle from the sidelines - especially after the recent U.S. intervention to rid them of an odious Milosevic - then they are not allies, but no more than nice peoples like the Swiss and the Costa Ricans."

It's hard to say how much support we're going to get from Europe when we hit Iraq. The only nation that really matters militarily is Britain and while I think they'll be with us, it's not a certainty with most of Labour and a majority of Brit's against it. It would be a shame to see our "special relationship" end over Iraq but if they don't go with us we won't look at them much differently than we do Belgium or Sweden in the future. The rest of Europe would be making a largely symbolic military contribution but we'd still rather have them with us, than on the sidelines.

But what happens after Iraq (and there will be an after Iraq)? Unless there is a large terrorist attack on Europe in the interim, I don't expect any European nations to go with us then. That will probably mean the end of NATO and an adversarial relationship between Europe and the US similar to our relationship with China. That's a shame, but we're not going to let millions of Americans die in terrorist attacks using WMD to make Europe happy. It's too bad that it will likely play out that way...

Another Terrorist Site 0wn3d: I really hesitate to link this because it takes shots at all Arabs instead of just the terrorists, but when a terrorist web site gets hacked it just deserves to be linked. In this case, Hizbollah's page got h@x0r3d. You can check it out here but be aware there is some offensive language on the page & that I do not agree with the sentiments expressed by the hackers.

Terrorism As A Tactic: If you break the 'War on Terrorism' down to it's simplest form, it's really an attempt to prove that using terrorism as a tactic to change the policies of governments is doomed to failure.

Groups don't commit terrorist attacks because of hopelessness, poverty, or any of the other root causes that leftists usually site. Groups like al-Queda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc, commit terrorist attacks because they believe the attacks will help them achieve their goals. For the last two decades or so they've been right.

We pulled out of Lebanon because of a terrorist attack, al-Queda sponsored a firefight in Somalia and we left, the Palestinians have wrung a lot of concessions out of the Israelis using terrorism, & the Brits are negotiating with the IRA. Furthermore, other than Reagan's bombing of Muammar Gaddafi's palace back in the eighties and some ineffective sanctions we did very, very, little to make terrorist organizations pay any sort of price for their actions before 9/11.

Now the Taliban did pay a terrible price for al-Queda's 9/11 attacks and that undoubtedly convinced some nations that the risks of terrorism were not worth the rewards of supporting it anymore. But other nations like Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and a few others have not learned that lesson yet. In fact, the lesson they may have taken away from 9/11 was that terrorism can do tremendous damage to the US but you BETTER NOT GET CAUGHT.

That risk/reward ratio HAS to be changed. We have got to convince every nation in the world that sponsoring terrorist groups will have such cataclysmic consequences that no nation will continue to do so. In short, we need to put the fear of the United States into these dictators and Islamo-fascists that run the Middle East. So if someone walks up to a thug like Bashar Assad in Syria and says, "We have a terrorist group that is seeking our help. Should we help them?" I want Assad to say something like, "A terrorist group? Are you mad? The United States will kill us all! Exterminate them like rats before the United States finds out they're on Syrian soil!" Sanctions, aid, and finger wagging are not going to produce that reaction.

In a world where chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons are becoming easier and easier for terrorist groups to access, we are inviting a catastrophe of Biblical proportions if we aren't willing to do whatever it takes to prove that terrorism is counterproductive. We weren't serious about proving that you can't achieve your goals via terrorism before 9/11 and we paid a butcher's bill for it. That was a hard lesson to learn and if we wobble, if we aren't willing to step up to this challenge, we will pay with millions of American lives.

Dogs Enlisting in Marines in Record Numbers: Parris Island, South Carolina - They come from all parts of America, from all walks of life. Some are from poor families, some are extremely wealthy. But like all Americans they're banding together in a time of need. They are the dogs of America, and like civilized people everywhere, they're outraged at the video of Arab terrorists brutally gassing an innocent puppy while testing weapons of mass destruction.

"Buncha camel-f**kin' puppy killers," snarled Max, an English bulldog from the Flatbush section of Brooklyn. "When I saw the video I knew I couldn't just sit on my keister or chase my tail. I had to do something (Cont)

You Still Think It's All About The Oil?: I think the left-wing "this is all about oil" whackos will find these numbers interesting.

According to the latest data from the Energy Information Administration (Adobe Acrobat File). We now get 7.9% of our oil from Saudi Arabia and only 2.2% of our oil from Iraq. In fact, the whole Persian Gulf produces a paltry 11.1% of our domestically consumed oil. Compare that to the combined 17.6% of our oil that we get from our two biggest suppliers, Mexico and Canada. Even that % pales to the 41% of our oil that we produce domestically.

So if the left-wing kooks out there who think the 'War on Terrorism' is really a cynical excuse to go out adventuring for oil are right, then why are we not trumping up an excuse to invade Mexico & Canada instead of Saudi Arabia and Iraq? For that matter, why are we even bothering to invade anyone at all to secure access to a mere 10% of our domestically consumed oil that we can already buy at our leisure? Just because the Gulf War was fought over oil, doesn't mean EVERY war is about oil...

Try And Stop Us: After I saw this image in a Simpsons rerun, I spent 30 minutes looking for it on the net but it was nowhere to be found. But someone named Sawbones from the website 'Arr, the Kraken' posted it in a thread on Fark about my 'Confessions of an Isolationist Wannabe" editorial.

Best image ever =D

Confessions Of Someone Getting Lots Of Traffic: My 'Confessions Of An Isolationist Wannabe' editorial must have really struck a nerve because it's getting linked all over the place. Of course, I give most of the credit to Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit for spreading it through the Blogosphere and Drew Curtis at Fark for getting it out to the general public.

But it's also been linked by The Truth Laid Bear, File 13's Amish Tech Support, Juan Gato, The Indepundit, Blogdex, Midwest Conservative Journal, Insignificant Thoughts, The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, Daily Pundit, One Hand Clapping, Jay Reding, Spleenville, Brass Knuckles Webzine, Seeking Truth, 11 Day Empire, On The Right Side, & The Safety Valve.

Out of all those web pages I think Juan Gato summed it up best when he said...

"John Hawkins explains it very well. You don't wanna do it. You'd like to let it go. But you know no one else will do it because you've been doing it so long they no longer understand why it must be done."

Thanks for all the linkage! Hopefully I can send you a little back. Feel free to add any other webpage that linked the article in the commentary section below.

Tom DeLay's 'The Imperative for Action Speech' On Aug 21, 2002: This one starts out a little slow as the Majority Whip throws a few bones to his Houston audience but DeLay goes on to make a powerful and compelling case for invading Iraq. He also tears into Europe in a way no American politician has in recent memory. Here are a few samples from this outstanding speech...

"...Despite the expanding capabilities of terror regimes and the growth of evil organizations, Europe peddles excuses for inaction."

===

They (Europe) demand we accept consensus as a first principle. They wish to direct the enterprise, but retreat seems to be their only war plan."

===

"...The U.S. State Department would do well to remember that it answers to the President of the United States, not the European Union."

===

"...The nations across the Atlantic, countries with ample experience in the perils of appeasement are unwilling or unable to summon the resolve to confront gathering evil.

These countries reflexively oppose any exercise of American power unless it`s summoned to liberate the besieged capitals of a vanquished Europe."

Canadian Man Mildly Offended That America Isn't Threatening To Invade Canada: Isn't having the United States say that you're "no threat" sort of like a friend of yours who asks you to "hang out" with his girlfriend while he's gone because he knows she'd "never go for someone like you?"

Letter To The Irish Times: In one of our commentary sections, someone named Ron posted an email he sent to the the Irish Times a while back. He said it wasn't published but I thought it deserved to be seen by a larger audience than the people who read the comments on that post. Therefore, I decided to reproduce it on the front page....

"Sir - About six months ago, I found your newspaper on the Internet and decided to read it on a regular basis. I thought at the time, hmm, Irish Times. Ireland. Well, let's see what the average Irishman has to say.

I will only say this. Maybe the critics are right. Maybe we should eliminate our army, our special forces, our jets and ships. Maybe we should reallocate the hundreds of billions of dollars to our own dire needs. And when the Indians wage war on the Pakistanis, the Arabs conduct their umpteenth war on the Jews, when the Koreas clash, when Saddam continues his grand design of acquiring the Iranian and Arabian oil fields, and when the Hutus massacre the Tutsis, the Wutsis, or whoever they hate this week, then maybe we can ship a few tons of wheat to the victims and give them a couple millions dollars of cash, all the while congratulating ourselves on our compassionate response. And if any country, any country, takes the courage to try to do something, anything, to make the situation just a little bit better, then, by all means, let's criticize that country while all the while proclaiming ourselves neutral and better."

What Does 'You're Not Black Enough' Mean?: I'm not a big Anthony Williams fan but this sort of thing annoys me to no end,

"D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams yesterday dismissed criticism that he is not "black enough" to be the District's mayor, saying he should be seen as an example of black success."

So Anthony Williams isn't "black enough" to be mayor huh? Well setting aside the blatantly racist idea that one's race should qualify or disqualify someone for public office in the first place, what does 'you're not black enough' actually mean?

If for example someone read something I wrote and said "you're not white enough" I'd think they were either a moron at best or a white supremacist at worst. But if you're black, there is a cookie-cutter mold that you have to conform to or else you're told you're an "uncle tom", a "want to be white", "aren't black enough", etc.

Does anyone else find this sort of thing ironic? I mean we have left-wingers who will insist that Conservatives are all mind-numbed robots who don't think for themselves. Yet, they see no issue with a black man being held up to public ridicule as some sort of race traitor just because he doesn't march in lockstep with the race profiteers who pass for leaders of the civil rights movement these days. Personally, I think it's tragic to see so many people being cowed into taking the 'safe postion' on important issues rather than risk taking criticism. Whatever anyone says, your 'blackness', 'whiteness', 'redness', or any other racial 'ess' you can come up with has nothing to do with your politics, your education, who your socialize with, or anything else.

Warning Labels For Dumpsters? What Next?: I think this may represent a new low not only for America, but for our species...

"Bumper stickers that say "No Baby Dumping" are causing lots of controversy in this small Northern California city.

Residents have mixed feelings about the idea, but many think it could work."

So we apparently have a Deputy District Attorney and 'many' residents in Santa Cruz who believe mothers are putting their babies into dumpsters because THEY DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER? Or is the general idea supposed to be that they do know better but will be discouraged by the sticker and will presumably find look for a dumpster without a sticker to dump their kid into?

Maybe we need to have a warning sign on guns that say, "please don't shoot your baby with this." Should the dashboard of your car say, "Please do not put your baby under the wheel and go forward?" We better not forget about ovens either, "Please do not put child in here."

At this point, I'm just waiting for the day when a mother who tosses her baby into a dumpster sues the owner of the dumpster for not having a sticker informing her that it was dangerous to put her child in there.

How Many Of You Know How To Use A Gun?: In the last episode of ACPOTI, I mentioned a now famous 'gun thread' from the Clear Guidance 'Youth of Islam' forums. Charles Johnson from Little Green Footballs had linked the thread and soon people were talking about it across the blogosphere. Well the heat got to be too much for the people who run Clear Guidance and they deleted it before I could immortalize the thread in our ACPOTI section.

But never fear, RWN's tentacles stretch far and wide across the net and we got our hands on a copy of the thread (thanks Jeanne D.). This thread was over seven pages long and was filled with talk about stabbing people, snuff films, and the evil of Jews. I edited out quite a few posts about guns, water guns, and other non-inflammatory posts. What's left will sicken and disgust you. Out of the entire forum, only one poster seemed to have any sort of problem with this sort of material being posted and I left most of that person's comments in. Read and learn a little more about what the Clear Guidance kids talk about when they don't think any kafirs are around...

Confessions Of An Isolationist Wannabe: Rarely a day passes on the internet without another article being written that claims America is a "hegemon", that we're like "like Rome," or that we want to "create an empire." Take it from a Conservative, ultra-nationalistic, America-first hawk; Americans on the whole would rather drive bamboo shoots under their fingernails than "rule the world."

To the contrary, isolationism is so ingrained in the American culture that it might as well be genetic. You have no idea how much I, like most Americans, would enjoy totally withdrawing from the world. (Cont)

Fatah Promises Massive Attacks: I have to admit that I'm really not sure what the rationale behind Israel's pull-out from Bethlehem and parts of the Gaza Strip is. The Israeli occupation of those areas has drastically cut down the number of terrorist attacks against Israel and the relentless pressure on the Palestinians has weakened their terrorist organizations and is slowly but surely draining the Palestinians will to fight. So why pull out now? Especially when it's highly likely that it will lead to more terrorist attacks on Israeli citizens....

"Fatah's military wing, the Aksa Martyrs' Brigades, vowed yesterday to carry out "massive attacks" in the coming days to mark the first anniversary of the murder of its founder and commander, Yasser Badwi, of the Balata refugee camp in Nablus"

Islamic Jihad, Hamas, & Fatah itself have all said they intend to continue attacking Israel as well. So what happens when Fatah, Hamas, etc, inevitably commit another terrorist attack after the Israeli troops pull out? Then the Israelis will just have to go right back into Gaza and Bethlehem again. So this pull-out makes no sense at all...unless there's something we don't know.

Could this finally be Israel's chance to get rid of Arafat? There were rumors floating around after Hamas killed five Americans in an attack that GWB gave the Israelis permission to expel him from Israel. Furthermore, the US can't afford to let Arafat win the elections (which he's the odds on favorite to win). If Arafat wins that means that there could be YEARS ahead with NO HOPE of significant progress towards peace. So could this Israeli withdrawal be a prelude to a removal of Arafat? I have to admit that this is just a wild theory but if this isn't it, I'm puzzled as to what Sharon's game is.

Arafat's 1.3 Billion: The Onion's 'What Do You Think' section takes on the revelation that Yasser Arafat is worth 1.3 billion dollars. My favorite quote from this one was,

"Arafat's got $1.3 billion? I guess he does have a nickel for every time somebody called him a terrorist."

Ding Dong, The Witch Is Dead!: In the spirit of the mainstream media's call of Florida for Gore before the polls were closed, I'd like to now be the first to declare Cynthia McKinney the LOSER of her district even though only 32 of the precints have been counted...

Precincts Reporting: 32 of 174
DENISE MAJETTE 14,419 80%
CYNTHIA MCKINNEY 3,594 20%

Hey Cynthia, how does it feel to know you're about to become a private citizen?

Excuse me while I celebrate like a Palestinian after a terrorist attack over your imminent defeat! Everyone Snoopy Dance! Happy, happy, joy, joy, happy, happy, joy, joy, happy, happy, joy, joy, happy, happy, joy, joy!

***Update***: McKinney went down 58% - 42%. Now the real fun should start tomorrow. Will McKinney &/or her supporters blame A) Jews B) The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy C) Uncle Toms and people who want to be white D) Voter fraud or controversy that requires lawsuits & legal challenges to rectify E) The Media F) All of the above G) Or will McKinney and her supporters surprise everyone and not whine like Al Gore about her loss? RWN and the rest of the Blogosphere will be watching and waiting...)

Why Our Containment Policy Has To Change: Our containment policy was an essential part to winning the 'Cold War'. While we tried to stop the Soviets from conquering other nations and from increasing the number of pro-Communist regimes, we grew in economic and military strength to the point where the Soviet system could no longer compete with us and collapsed.

Containment is still a quite useful strategy today. It's our policy with the Chinese, it was the policy that drove how we dealt with Iraq after the Gulf War, and it even has uses in the 'War on Terrorism'. For example, you can bet that we'll do everything in our considerable power to prevent any other governments from falling into the hands of pro-terrorist Islamic radicals.

However, containment in and of itself is not a workable strategy against terrorism. But if it worked against the Soviets, China, & pre-911 Iraq why can't it be our primary strategy in the 'War on Terrorism?' Well those countries wouldn't dare launch a military attack against US citizens. If let's say the Chinese military sent agents to America who somehow killed thousands of American citizens it would correctly be called an 'act of war' and the response would be devastating.

But that is not necessarily true for states that support terrorism. Nations like Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc, often claim to have no responsibility for attacks made by terrorist groups based on their soil. This is despite the fact that they fund, train, arm, and protect these terrorist groups. Their hope is that these terrorist groups can make strikes against their enemies without being blamed. This was not something we had to deal with during the 'Cold War.' If the Soviets had launched a nuke at us or tried to invade Europe, there would have been no question who was involved. But if a nuke exploded in Houston tomorrow could we definitively know where it came from? If hundreds of thouands of people were infected with small pox next week could we definitively know which nations provided it to the terrorists who were responsible? Not necessarily, just look at the 'anthrax mailings' that happened after 9/11.

As far as Iraq goes, before 9/11 our primary worry was that Hussein would invade Kuwait again. But after 9/11 our main concern is that Hussein will supply terrorists with nuclear/chemical/or biological weapons to be used against us. Containment is effective against the first threat, but not the second. This is why President Bush has advocated 'pre-emptive' attacks on enemy nations that support terrorism. If everything I've said so far doesn't convince you that containment is not the way to go, then keep in mind that on the very day that terrorists killed almost 3000 Americans, Afghanistan was completely contained.

The Puppy-Oil Cannon: This is funny yet disturbing. If you are sensitive you may want to skip this one. Don't say I didn't warn you...

Moving On Up: We have our first link from 'The Corner"....

"One of the most predictable - and nauseating - arguments of those opposed to a war in Iraq is their insistence that any action against Saddam's regime needs the approval of the UN to make it somehow 'respectable'.

Well, here is an example of that great moral arbiter at work. Thanks to blogger Right Wing News for pointing it out."

Thanks Andrew Stuttaford. Keep the links going and there might be a Christmas present in it for you ;)

Republicans Split On The War?: The latest spin coming out of the New York Times is that the Republican party is now split on the war. I didn't pay a lot of attention to the article at first but since I'm hearing about it all across the mainstream media I thought I should address it.

They mention Brent Scowcroft, Lawrence S. Eagleburger, Richard Lugar, Chuck Hagel, Henry Kissenger, and Dick Armey as influential Republicans who've come out against the war. Well first off, out of that group, Scowcroft, Eagleburger, Lugar, & Hagel are not "power players" in the Republican party. They're not people who shape policy or thought on the right and although it'd great for them to be on board, whether they are or not isn't going to influence a lot of other Conservatives one way or the other. Kissenger is influential but the New York Times misrepresented his position, he is for the war. Armey is an influential Republican but he has a strong Libertarian streak and tends to be very reluctant to commit our forces to battle.

So what do we have here? Dick Armey & four inconsequential Republicans who are against Iraq. That's hardly constitutes a split or a significant rift in the GOP and I don't expect to see one. While there will be a few naysayers, the support for the war with Iraq in the Republican party is overwhelming and I don't expect that to change anytime soon.

Are The Vouchers Ready Yet?: The sooner you can get your kids away the mediocre teaching and left-wing social engineering that passes for public education these days, the better off they'll be. Here's the latest garbage the NEA is foisting on your kids...

"The National Education Association is suggesting to teachers that they be careful on the first anniversary of the September 11 attacks not to "suggest any group is responsible" for the terrorist hijackings that killed more than 3,000 people.

"Suggested lesson plans compiled by the NEA recommend that teachers "address the issue of blame factually," noting: "Blaming is especially difficult in terrorist situations because someone is at fault. In this country, we still believe that all people are innocent until solid, reliable evidence from our legal authorities proves otherwise."

Can you imagine this sort of rubbish after Pearl Harbor? "We haven't seen 'solid, reliable evidence from our legal authorities' that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor so we better not point any fingers."

As if that wasn't bad enough our kids have to listen to the following on 9/11 of all days...

"But another of the suggested NEA lesson plans - compiled together under the title "Remember September 11" and appearing on the teachers union health information network Web site - takes a decidedly blame-America approach, urging educators to "discuss historical instances of American intolerance," so that the American public avoids "repeating terrible mistakes."

"Internment of Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor and the backlash against Arab Americans during the Gulf War are obvious examples," the plan says. "Teachers can do lessons in class, but parents can also discuss the consequences of these events and encourage their children to suggest better choices that Americans can make this time."

You know if they added in a little bit of information about how to make molotov cocktails and the glories of blowing yourself up for Allah they could use this lesson plan in a Palestinian school. Too bad our kids couldn't hear about the bravery of firefighters on 9/11, learn about the beginnings of our nation's other wars, or even discuss the Gettysburg address that will be read at the 9/11 ceremony in New York instead of being fed this left-wing 'blame America first' lesson plan.

Coulter Speaks: I ran across this Ann Coulter response to Richard Cohen on Dawson Speaks and thought it was funny...

"I concede that at one place in the book [Ann Coulter's Slander] I scribbled "good point!" in the margin (p. 108). I tell you that so you can turn to that page in the bookstore and skip the painful rest." ~Dick Cohen, The Washington Post August 15, 2002

"I'm going to have to find out what's on page 108 and take it out!" ~Ann Coulter, in conversation, yesterday morning.

Q & A On The War: Here are just a few of the questions I've asked myself about the 'War on Terrorism' along with the answers I believe to be correct. Ask yourself these same questions and see if our answers are the same...

- Does 'state support' of terrorism increase the chances that the United States will be hit with a or high casualty biological attack or nuclear attack? (Yes, by a lot)

- Can we cripple terrorist groups with global reach without ending the 'state support' of terrorism? (No)

- How important is crippling terrorist groups with global reach? (As important as winning WW2)

- Can we convince nations that do support terrorism to stop doing so through diplomatic means, sanctions, etc? (Some yes, most no)

- Which would likely be more costly in lives, capital, and effort, invading Iran, Iraq, etc, or dealing with a nuclear explosion or high casualty biological attack in a major city in the United States? (Nuclear explosion or high casualty biological attack by far)

- Is it worth the difficulties and possible casualties of military action in order to have a greatly reduced chance that the US will be the victim of a nuclear or high casualty biological attack? (Yes)

- Would replacing the governments of Iran, Iraq, etc, lead to a much smaller likelihood that they'd be aiding terrorist groups against us? (Yes)

- Would invading Iraq, Iran, etc., make other nations more likely or less likely to support groups that want to launch terrorist attacks against America? (Less)

- If we do nothing and the United States is hit with future terrorist attacks, are we likely to get more support from our 'allies' than we're getting this time around? (No)

- If nations like Iran, Iraq, etc, were to stop supporting terrorist groups and stop seeking nuclear weapons, would there be any need for us to invade them? (No)

- If we overthrew the governments of Iraq, Iran, etc, would the people of those nations be better or worse off? (Better)

- Which is more important, having a significantly larger percentage of people in the world who approve of the United States over the short-term or having a greatly decreased risk of having more 911s in the United States? (Having a greatly decreased risk of having more 911s).

If you came up with the same answers I did, it's quite likely that you support invading Iraq just as I do...

The Reparations Hustle: Just when you thought the contemptible swine in the reparations movement couldn't get anymore pathetic and sad....

"A few thousand black demonstrators rallied on the Mall in Washington on Saturday to demand that the U.S. government pay blacks reparations for slavery and decades of discrimination.

Barron, a self-proclaimed "elected revolutionary," said if the government did not act swiftly he personally would storm the Treasury Department and take the money for reparations."

Now imagine the outcry that would follow a white politician saying something like, "I want to go up to the closest black person and say, 'You can't understand this, it's a white thing ,' and then slap him, just for my mental health."

Apparently Louis Farrakhan, fresh off of cuddling up to Saddam Hussein and Robert Mugabe, found time to speak at the rally as well. He said among other things, "We cannot settle for some little jive token. We need millions of acres of land that black people can build."

Millions of acres along with I'm what I'm sure would be a demand for trillions of dollars to build it up with huh? Barron, Farrakhan, and the whole reparations movement are examples of what happens when you become so consumed with your own supposed victimhood that you start to believe that the world owes you a living just for being born.

Meet Anthony Bright: Unless you're a Carolina Panther fan you probably haven't heard of Anthony Bright. He's had a solid pre-season so far but he's probably only #4 on the Carolina Panthers depth chart at wide receiver. That being said, he is a lock to make the team unless he gets hurt and the way he's playing he may be able to work himself into the #3 position by the time the season starts.

Now you should know who Anthony Bright is, not because you'll be seeing him at the All-Star game this year (you won't), but because his hard work and belief in himself when no one else did should serve as an example to people in all walks of life. You see Anthony Bright didn't play college football. He went to a small school on a basketball scholarship and dropped out after a year and a half. Here's a little more about his story...

"Anthony Bright would be working highway construction under the hot Florida sun, pouring asphalt that was hotter still onto some developing state road, but he would be thinking football. And when the 10- or even 14-hour day had ended, he would change into workout gear and lift weights or run, sprinting toward what most thought to be the impossible dream.

"I think, `That used to be me,' " he said. "Really, I don't want to go back there. If I have to, I would, but I don't want to. It just keeps me working harder when I'm out there practicing. You think about that heat; it just makes me thank God even more."

Here's a guy who had every excuse in the world to give-up. He hadn't played organized football in five years, he had no college experience and he had a physically taxing job that must have really drained his energy. But even when no one else believed in him, he believed in himself enough to keep working towards his goal and today he's on the verge of achieving it. Anthony Bright is a perfect example of what you can accomplish if you are willing to chase your dreams and he should serve as an inspiration to all of us.

Who Cares What The UN Thinks?: Unless they changed the date on April Fools Day without telling anyone, this is just one more reason why Americans should ignore the United Nations...

"Libyan leader Colonel Gadaffi is to head an international watchdog on human rights.

Libya is to be elected chair of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights -despite its links with terrorism and torture."

And some people can't understand why we're unilateralists....

At Last: Movable Type is finally installed on RWN. That means we now have working comments, working permalinks, trackback (it shows people who link to these articles), and we will from this point on have working archives. I had to do a LOT of coding to get this work with my current setup but I think it's going to be worth it.

I Will Not Hesitate To Bash Some Of Their Heads In: In two previous episodes of ACPOTI, RWN covered some of the Islamo-fascists and terrorist wannabes who like to hang out at the Clear Guidance 'Youth of Islam' forums. The articles did get some linkage from the Blogosphere, but they didn't make a huge splash.

Well since then, a few crazies from the forum caught the attention of Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs. He alerted the world to a particularly vile thread about stabbing Jews to death along with a snuff film that somehow got tossed into the mix. Unfortunately, before I could punch that up for ACPOTI, the thread was wiped off the face of the earth. Luckily for ACPOTI fans, the Clear Guidance crew has been hard at work posting new material about stabbing kafirs, black magic, & snuff films among other things. Read and enjoy...

Is He Stupid Or Just Intellectually Dishonest?: I read an editorial against the 'War on Terrorism' today by Hugh McKay in the Sydney Morning Herald and it prompted me to once again ask myself a question that I often do after reading arguments made by the anti-war left; are they being intellectually dishonest or are they just stupid?

Although I'm strongly in favor of the 'War on Terrorism', I would concede that it's possible to make an intelligent argument against it. Now in my opinion, the case for the war is much, much, stronger, but sometimes reasonable people can disagree even if they accept the same set of basic facts. But how could any intelligent, rational, reasonable person possibly get things as wrong as Hugh McKay did? Let me comment on some of the things in the editorial that he wrote and I think you'll see what I mean...

"It's possible to imagine how nations could decide to go to war over territorial issues. The urges involved are ancient and primitive, and you can see why land has always been such a potent symbol of survival, security and, therefore, of identity as well."

Primitive urges? Symbols? How about acquiring important resources, controlling key defensive areas, or what about just needing more space? We're in the opening sentence of the editorial and it's already obvious that McKay has not the slightest clue about the reasons his fellow humans do things. It's almost like McKay is an alien who studied human beings but doesn't really fathom the intricacies of their behavior.

"What might happen to the Iraqis after that is anyone's guess. Perhaps they'll be thrown to the next pack of wolves, as the Afghans have been. (Who ever presumed the Northern Alliance would be a safer bet than the Taliban?)"

We're pumping billions in money and supplies into Afghanistan, we're freely admitting that we plan to be there for years, and we're helping their new government build itself from scratch. Yet that's "throwing them to the wolves?" Also, since McKay apparently hasn't been watching the news for the last eight months or so, we didn't exchange the 'Taliban' for the 'Northern Alliance.' The fact that Karzai wasn't a member of the Northern Alliance, that we're trying to help Afghanistan build a Democracy, that millions of refugees who fled the Taliban are returning, etc, is just lost on McKay. But why doesn't McKay know these things? What is his major malfunction?

"Translation: "We don't trust Saddam Hussein, so we intend to get rid of him by invading his country."...

Will Zimbabwe be next? What about North Korea, part of Bush's infamous "axis of evil"? Or Libya? (Oops, I forgot: Gaddafi has suddenly, remarkably, changed from a bad guy into a good guy, it seems.) What about Saudi Arabia, breeding ground for most of the terrorists involved in events of September 11?"

I'm sort of surprised that he references 9/11 after just making comments that seem to indicate that he DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IT HAPPENED. How can else you explain the fact that he tosses Zimbabwe in there? I mean how could anyone who knows about 9/11, the 'War on Terrorism', the Bush Doctrine, & the 'Axis of Evil', think that Zimbabwe should make just as must sense as Iraq in Bush's eyes? This just doesn't seem like something that should puzzle ANYONE who's even been paying the slightest bit of attention to the events of the last eleven months. So why doesn't McKay seem to get it?

"If the new world order means the US can impose its will on the regimes of other countries by military intervention, why wouldn't other countries follow suit? Why wouldn't India, for instance, decide to effect regime change in Pakistan? And mightn't someone, some day, decide the US is itself ripe for regime change?"

I really hate to disillusion McKay here, but nations have been imposing their will militarily on other nations...well...since there were nations. That's something the most basic and cursory reading of history makes amply clear. So why doesn't McKay appear to understand this? Why doesn't he understand that India WOULD CONQUER Pakistan tomorrow if they could do it without getting nuked or suffering serious losses? Also, it's our carriers, planes and tanks that keep other nations from deciding that the 'US is itself ripe for regime change' and nothing else. That's how it always has been, is, and will likely be in the future. What does McKay think has changed in 2002 that means the sum total of human history no longer applies?

"Bush talks about "weapons of mass destruction" as though such things are the abhorrent figment of some alien imagination. He appears oblivious to the irony of his own position, as custodian of the world's greatest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. The US defence, presumably, is that such weapons are safe in the hands of Americans, but not in anyone else's ... so that's all right, then."

Again, why does McKay not seem to understand that we see a difference between an aggressive, pro-terrorist, anti-American, dictator who's used WMD against his own people having nukes and say Britain having them? This is like running across someone who doesn't understand the difference between your mother using a knife to cut a Thanksgiving turkey and a having a mugger holding a knife on you in an alley. Yes they're both people holding knives, but one is a threat to you and the other isn't. How can any intelligent person not understand this?

"At one level, I can see why John Howard would support whatever mock-heroic schemes Bush might propose between now and the US mid-term elections: our PM wouldn't want to find himself on the list of leaders earmarked for "regime change".

My first inclination here was to think that McKay was joking but when you look at everything else he wrote, you have to think he's serious. I mean isn't this the same guy who earlier in the editorial said that, '(d)oes this mean that any regime the US doesn't like is fair game?" For all we know, McKay may be digging out a bomb shelter in the outback right now and stocking it up with home-cured Koala Bear jerky to prepare for the upcoming war with the US that'll happen if John Howard doesn't go along with our invasion of Iraq.

So after reading all of this, ask yourself this question; is McKay stupid or intellectually dishonest? Because he has to be one or the other...

Chalk One Up For The Blogosphere: McDonald's felt the wrath of the Blogosphere and surrendered like the French army. Yesterday, pundits including RWN thrashed McDonald's for the following statement that appeared on the McDonald's Saudi Arabia portion of their page...

"There are two unique McDonald's restaurants located in the Holy City of Makkah. These restaurants are the only two restaurants in the world that are wholly staffed with Muslim employees and who serve exclusively Muslim customers, from Service Crew to Restaurant Manager level."

Some of us **cough...cough...RWN...cough...cough** made reference to plunging stock prices if this hit the mainstream media.

Well presto-changeo, it's gone. Blogosphere 1 - Mickey D's 0 - The Mainstream Media - never even got in the game.

It's America's Fault That It Rained Today!: Across the world, no matter what happens, there's always someone willing to blame America for it. Did your boss skip over you for that big promotion? It's America's fault! Did your son say a curse word? American culture must be influencing him! Did your 15 year old kid refuse to blow himself up on a bus in Israel? He's been listening to Americans again (OK, this one only applies in Palestine). The latest thing the anti-Americans are blaming us for is...drumroll please...the weather.

After writing my latest editorial about the huge, thick, cloud 'o' death that's settled in over Asia, "diabolik ik" sent me an email to let me know that America was probably to blame...

"just a side-note: where pollution effects the environment and the source of the pollution can be very seperate places. For example, I live in a small Canadian city that due to its mining practices, produces 4% of the world's pollution. We don't notice it one bit. I mean, I see the smoke leave the stack, but that smoke passes overhead without doing anything except more acidic rain, that type of thing.. but the smog created in my city actually lands somewhere in europe or asia. Certainly, some sources of pollution are local, such as cars and smaller factories, but on a larger scale pollution created in my green little hometown affects the air quality worldwide. So in reply to your point about the US not being the problem yet environmentalists whine about it, look at pollution exports. That cloud o death in asia is probably half our smoke to begin with."

So a "two-mile-thick cloud of pollution shrouding southern Asia" which is composed of "a toxic cocktail of ash, acids, aerosols and other particles" is probably "half ours." The fact that this cloud this seems to have settled in over Asia for a long stay and that there's no cloud over America means nothing. It still is probably "half our smoke."

Then there are the floods that are happening in Europe. That was apparently caused by our refusal to sign Kyoto...

"Leftist politicians and environmentalists sought yesterday to link Europe's worst floods in decades to U.S. reluctance to endorse the Continent's approach to fighting global warming.

"This definitely has to do with global warming. We must change something now," he said. "Those nations that really are careless with the environment should have to compensate."

Environmentalists have been claiming for years that the Kyoto Treaty was going to take care of global warming right? Well Kyoto met it's target of getting nations that produce at least "55 % of the total carbon dioxide emissions" to join up didn't it? If Kyoto is the answer, then isn't the problem solved? Not when you can blame the United States...

Well they're blaming us for the death cloud over Asia & the floods in Europe, so how long will it be before they start blaming us for earthquakes? Oh wait, some people already have...

The Problem With The European Left: Justin Sodano from The Weigh In sent me an email asking what I thought about one of Steven Den Beste's latest editorials. Den Beste talks about "Transnational Progressivism" which I'd basically define left-wing internationalism.This philosophy encompasses all the usual claptrap that the left, in particular the European-left, loves to promote. International law, the United Nations, multiculturalism, the more fascist tendencies of the EU, anti-nationalism, moral equivalence, victimology, etc.

The biggest problem with the European left's view of the world is that they've totally misunderstood what happened to Europe after World War 2. They look at what has been a relatively peaceful, prosperous, and harmonious 60 years in Europe and believe that diplomacy, brilliant European leadership, and a commitment to cooperation made it all happen. This is like assuming that people pay income tax because politicians have passed laws that require them to do. Actually, that's not the case. People pay income taxes because if they refused to do so, someone with a gun will show up and force them to pay their taxes or be put in jail. If there was no longer a threat of men with guns showing up to put people in prison for not paying their taxes, the amount of revenue collected would quickly fall off to almost nothing.

Therein lies the problem the European left's view of their post WW2 world. Without the US and the rest of NATO defending Western Europe from the Soviets and enforcing the rule of law in Western Europe itself, all the diplomacy and treaties in the world wouldn't have made one bit of difference. United Nations resolutions and condemning things in the 'strongest terms' means exactly jack diddley squat in non-Western countries. Do you think Saddam Hussein cares if the EU condemns him for gassing the Kurds? Do you think a United Nations resolution would dissuade the Iran from developing nuclear weapons? Do you think a few European nations sending their ambassadors home would keep China from invading Taiwan? Even sanctions don't mean much in the days of global economy. Europe couldn't cut off all trade with China or stop buying oil from the Middle East without causing a depression back at home that their citizens would never tolerate.

There is an ultimate truth about the war that the European-left can't bear to face. If they ever achieved their goal and convinced the United States that they were right, that treaties, diplomacy, and UN resolutions were the way to go, the world would quickly devolve into chaos, war, and a total breakdown of global order within a decade. Maybe it would take that sort of brutal savagery to wake up the internationalist lefties, but the rest of us shouldn't have to experience that sort nightmare to recognize the reality in front of our faces.

George W. Bush: 'No Decision Has Been Made About Iraq': RWN has scooped the mainstream press again with the transcript of the latest Bush press conference in which he explains that 'no decision has been made about Iraq."

Step Away From The McRib Sandwich Kaffir: Hungry for a Big Mac or thinking about chowing down on some Chicken McNuggets? Well then you better stay out of Saudi Arabia where Sheikh Abdulrahman Alireza makes sure infidels like you are not allowed to have Happy Meals...

"All McDonald's restaurants in Saudi Arabia are owned and operated by leading members of the Saudi business community...Their local input into the management of this global brand has helped ensure McDonald's popularity and success in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and there are currently no fewer than 71 branches strategically located in all of Saudi's major cities, including two in the holy city of Mecca - a place sacred to Muslims throughout the world.

There are two unique McDonald's restaurants located in the Holy City of Makkah. These restaurants are the only two restaurants in the world that are wholly staffed with Muslim employees and who serve exclusively Muslim customers, from Service Crew to Restaurant Manager level."

I wonder if they have a sign on the door that says something like, "No Americans, Jews, or Dogs allowed."

The most amazing thing about this is that McDonald's is stupid enough to BRAG about this on their own homepage. If this story really broke in the mainstream press it would make so many people mad that I bet you their stock would drop. Dumb, dumb, dumb...

Thanks to CrooooW Blog & Zion Blog for the link.

The Cloud 'O' Death: Sometimes you run across a story that makes you look at an issue in an entirely different way. For some of you, this may be one of those types of stories...

"A two-mile-thick cloud of pollution shrouding southern Asia is threatening the lives of millions of people in the region and could have an impact much further afield, according to a U.N.-sponsored study."(Cont)

The Top 10 Changes That Could Be Made To Operation TIPS: Hell, I actually LIKE Operation TIPS. Most of the complaints about it are way overblown. It's really nothing but a giant 'Neighborhood Watch' program. Still, funny is funny and this is funny =)

The Top 10 Questions The Saudis Are Asking Their Al-Queda Captives: Iran just shipped 16 members of al-Queda off to Saudi Arabia for questioning. Laurence Simon was wondering what kind of questions the Saudis were asking their al-Queda captives? Probably something along the lines of...

"Will you sign an autograph for my kid?"

"Mideast Experts Say That Arafat, 72, Really Is A Little Light In His Combat Boots": Apparently the Weekly World News has gotten tired of writing about the delightful antics of "Bat Boy" and has decided to have some fun at the expense of terrorist thug Yasser Arafat. The WWN says Arafat is gay and they're claiming they have a photo to prove it...

"We have identified the kissee as Arafat's longtime lover, a lieutenant named Habib Mahfoudh," said a CIA source who leaked the photo exclusively to Weekly World News."

They also took this gratuitous cheap shot at old scruffy & smelly as well...

"Arafat's homosexuality goes back decades," says biographer Ali Nasser of Cairo, author of the upcoming book, The Private Life of Yassir Arafat.

"His real first name is Mohammed, but as a boy he earned the nickname Yassir -- meaning 'easy' in Arabic -- because he so willingly gave his body to male suitors."

I would pay $100 to see Arafat's face if a CNN reporter quoted that last line to Arafat and asked him if he could confirm or deny whether that story was true.