This Is What Happens When You Make Up The Rules As You Go: Considering what the Florida State Supreme Court did in the 2000 election and what the New Jersey State Supreme Court just did in the NJ Senate race the following shouldn't surprise anyone...

"Arguing that defeated Georgia Rep. Cynthia McKinney was the victim of a "malicious crossover" vote by Republicans, five DeKalb County voters asked a federal court Friday to throw out the results of the primary.

State officials pointed to the law Friday and said it was clear that Georgia voters can vote for whomever they want in the primaries; there are no restrictions on preferred political party affiliation."

Sure the LAW may say that Republicans can vote for whoever they want in the primaries, but what difference does that make right? In Florida the Democrats wanted to count the same votes over and over until their guy won. In New Jersey, the Democrats want to be able to switch out their candidate for the Senate at their convenience based on nothing more than, "our guy is losing." Asking the Georgia court to simply ignore the law and appoint their candidate the winner is just the next logical step. I sincerely hope the SCOTUS takes the New Jersey case and overrules the NJSC or we're going to constantly see Democrats in court trying to get activist judges to subvert the law to help Democrats get elected.

The UN Knows What's Best For Your Kids: Well, well, well -- it looks like the UN is dictating to the Brits how they're going to raise their children....

"Britain should repeal a 142-year-old law giving parents the right to spank their children because it violates an international treaty, a United Nations ( news - web sites) committee said Friday.

But it also called for the repeal of an 1860 law that allows parents to use "reasonable chastisement" to punish their children."

You're probably wondering, "Will these UNocrats will be demanding that Americans stop spanking their kids next?" Oh no, that's not going to be a problem....

"The United States is one of only two countries - the other is Somalia - that has not ratified the treaty."

Ah -- the benefits of unilateralism!

Jed Come Quick - They're Making Fun Of Southerners Again!: Lawerence Toppman is an insufferable left-wing hack who does movie reviews for my local paper, the Charlotte Observer. However, just this once, he wrote something worth reading about the movie 'Sweet Home Alabama' of all things...

"Alabama" treats the rural South as the land where we bury coon dogs in cemeteries of their own and go bananas over newfangled furniture such as recliners. On Saturday nights, the most admirable people swig beer atop the water tower and drop the empties down to the concrete base.

But git them backwoods cousins a-marryin', and nobody complains. The general public believes that such peckerwood characters may be slight exaggerations, but they're probably close enough to the truth to pass."

I don't know anyone who has an outhouse, our deputies do have bullets in their guns, and we don't eat 'possum stew.' Not that North Carolina and say Massachusetts are exactly alike (Thank God), but you have to wonder how these bizarre caricatures of Southerners continue to make it into film and television year after year.

Unhinged And Creepy Lunacy From The Left: Under the best of circumstances, liberals do not tend to be logical or realistic about much of anything except their chances of electing more liberals. But since 9/11, the left has gotten progressively crazier and more hysterical almost by the week. How big has the reality disconnect gotten?

Bartcop's Political Humor, a web site that has multiple pictures up that compare George Bush to a Nazi, had this to say...

"Freedom? When's the last time we saw any freedom in the United States?" (Cont)

Falwell's Mixes Truth With Lies: Jerry Falwell generally annoys me because he has a really big mouth, he regularly says really stupid things, and he claims to speak for people like me. The latest controversy involving Falwell is pretty typical for him....

"The conservative Baptist minister tells correspondent Bob Simon he has concluded from reading Muslim and non-Muslim writers that Islam's prophet "was a -- a violent man, a man of war."

That may be controversial, but it's largely true. He even tempers that statement a bit...

"I've said often and many places that most Muslims are people of peace and want peace and tranquility for their families and abhor terrorism," Falwell said. "Islam, like most faiths, has a fringe of radicals who carry on bloodshed wherever they are. They do not represent Islam"

Falwell may even be going overboard there. I for one am not convinced that the majority of Muslims are against terrorism -- at least when it's aimed at Jews. Osama Bin Laden is also wildly popular in Islamic world and it isn't because his clothes are so white in all of his videos.

But of course Falwell, because he just can't keep his big mouth shut, had to say one dumb thing that everyone is going to remember...

"The Rev. Jerry Falwell says "I think Muhammad was a terrorist" in an interview to be broadcast Sunday on the CBS program 60 Minutes."

To be honest, I don't care if Falwell makes a fool of himself. But since so many people associate this moron with Conservatives I wish he'd shut the hell up.

Paranoia -- Jersey Style: Amiri Bakara, the New Jersey Poet Laureatee who claimed that 4,000 Israeli workers stayed home on 9/11 was on Connie Chung last night. This guy is obviously the charter member of tinfoil hat club in New Jersey. In fact, he was so stark raving bonkers that even Connie Chung couldn't pretend he wasn't damaged goods. Here's part of the transcript....

Baraka: Well, here's the point. My intention was to show that not only did Israel know, because Israel -- we're talking about 9/11 -- not only did Israel know, but the United States knew. Bush and company...

Chung: You're saying that Israel and the United States knew...

Baraka: And Germany.

Chung: ... that these attacks were going to occur?

Baraka: And Germany and France and Russia and England. And this is confirmed.

Chung: And you know that's preposterous.

Baraka: Do I know it's preposterous?

Chung: Yes.

Baraka: No, it's not preposterous.

(CROSSTALK)

Chung: The Israelis did not know. The United States did not know.

Baraka: You know that's not true. One of the reasons that what's her name, McKinney, Cynthia McKinney, the congresswoman from Georgia, got put out is because she said the same thing. I have a press release of hers in my bag that says the same thing.

Chung: What evidence do you have?

Baraka: Do you know that the Democratic Party is saying the same thing?

Chung: The Democratic Party does not say that, sir.

Baraka: The Democratic Party does not say that Bush and company knew?

Chung: Knew that 9/11, the attacks were going to occur?

Baraka: Knew that 9/11 was coming, yes. They don't say that?

Chung: They don't say that.

Baraka: That's not what they said last week, two weeks ago.

Chung: There have been reports. There have been committee hearings regarding it, but no.

Baraka: When they were saying they can't connect the dots?

Chung: No.

Baraka: I think, though, you're not reading closely. Maybe you hear what you want to here.

Chung: What evidence do you have?

Baraka: What evidence do the people who have said that have? What evidence does the Democratic Party? There is any number of articles on the Internet. You can check with any number of Israeli newspapers, "Haaretz", "Yediot Aharonot," Manar TV. You can check the Web site of Shevac (ph), the Israeli security. And what's wild is that people like this company, for instance -- and I'm not singling you out -- you have huge mainframe computers. You can get this stuff with just a few taps of your fingers.

Link via Croooow Blog.

Reason #94590454 Why The Libertarians Aren't A Mainstream Party: This is too funny...

"Montana's Libertarian candidate for Senate has turned blue from drinking a silver solution that he believed would protect him from disease.

His skin began turning blue-gray a year ago."

If the Libertarians ever want to start competing with the Democrats and the Republicans they're going to have to stop running smurf-wannabes for office....

**Update**: Todd LaClair points out another fine Libertarian candidate for office...

This guy looks more like an evil henchman for a James Bond villain than a potential Lt. Governor of California. Scary...

The Consequences Of Inaction In Iraq: The consequences of removing Saddam Hussein by force have been discussed ad nauseam over the last few months. However, the consequences of inaction have not been as fully explored and that needs to be remedied.

If you are not in favor of removing Saddam Hussein via force, then you are by default in favor of or at least willing to risk that...

-- Saddam will acquire nukes. At this point, you've got to admit that it's just a matter of time unless he's stopped.

-- You are willing to risk that a nuclear blackmail scenario like the one described here by Eugene Volokh. You may think it's farfetched and irrational but I do not. In fact, were I in Saddam's shoes I'd consider Volokh's plan it to be worth the risk.

-- That al-Queda & other terrorist groups will be given a safe haven in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, & Syria. If we're not willing to hit Iraq, we're certainly not going to hit these other nations. That means terrorism will be allowed to flourish in those nations just as it did in Afghanistan pre-911.

-- It will be impossible to finish off al-Queda since we'll have made it clear that we're not willing to go after them no matter where they go.

-- The chances of a terrorist attack in the US involving nukes will go up dramatically since Saddam knows that even if a nuke goes off in an American city it will be very difficult to PROVE that he was somehow responsible if he's careful about covering his tracks. Saddam might be very willing to go along with a scenario where al-Queda sets off a nuke in a US city and then publicly took credit for it and claimed that they received the nuke from Pakistan or off the Russian black market to deflect attention from Hussein.

-- Saddam Hussein will continue to rule Iraq. That means he will in all likelihood deliberately starve tens of thousands, and perhaps hundreds of thousands of his people to death and blame the sanctions (even assuming that they'll be lifted in a couple of years). Countless numbers of people will be tortured, raped, and murdered by his regime and all the Iraqi people will continue to be oppressed.
The people against a war with Iraq consider this preferable to removing Saddam.

-- Terrorists across the world would begin to believe (correctly I might add) that if America doesn't invade Iraq, we don't have the will to continue to fight terrorism. That belief would inspire more terrorist attacks on America and American interests in an attempt to force us to meet the terrorists demands.

-- Once it's clear that we're not willing to continue to use force, we'll likely see backsliding from other regimes that have been cooperating with us at least partially out of fear since 9/11. Nations like Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Pakistan, and Sudan could suddenly become much less willing to cooperate.

-- Rogue regimes like Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and the 'Disputed territories' will continue to arm, train, and protect terrorist organizations just as the Taliban did in Afghanistan. This will make these organizations much more effective than they would otherwise be and will make it easier for them to carry out large scale operations like 9/11.

-- UN resolutions will be totally meaningless. They are already meaningless if the US and Britain don't support them, but giving Saddam a free pass will mean that any nation can ignore the UN with impunity in all situations.

The anti-war activists who want to simply stick their heads in the sand and pretend that we can go back to 9/10/2001 if we don't attack Iraq are drastically misreading the situation. Saddam Hussein and the rest of the global terrorist network are not going to go away and refusing to deal with them is potentially MUCH more dangerous than dealing with.

Calling Clinton's Bluff On Iraq: Our ex-weasel-in-chief is abroad in Britain and he was talking about Iraq. At first, he sounds like a hawk....

"Arguing that weapons inspectors should be sent back to Iraq, but backed with the new resolution, Mr Clinton told Britain's ruling party convention: 'Saddam Hussein as usual is bobbing and weaving. We should call his bluff.'"

Clinton sounds like Bush here doesn't he? He acknowledges that Saddam isn't serious about inspections and Clinton wants a new resolution that will allow truly unfettered resolutions. Clinton is even acknowledging that we're going to be "call(ing) his bluff." Indeed, Saddam has made it very clear that he will not accept unconditional inspections. So then what?

"'If the inspections go forward, as I hope they will, perhaps we can avoid a conflict,' he said.

He added that international institutions were the best guarantee of a peaceful future."

Wait a second -- I thought we were going to call Saddam's bluff just a moment ago? Saddam's people have made it crystal clear that he's not going to accept exactly the type of inspections that Clinton endorsed. So inspections aren't going to "go forward." Clinton's comment about 'supporting opposition groups' is meaningless. There are no opposition groups in Iraq that have any chance of unseating Hussein.

So when Clinton says '(w)e should call his bluff' he literally means we should point out that Saddam is bluffing and then we shouldn't do anything about it.

Clinton and the rest of the Democrats have to be called on the consequences of what they're suggesting. Let's follow the path Clinton is wants us to walk to its logical conclusion. Clinton is saying for all intents and purposes that he doesn't think we should try to stop Saddam even if he is seeking nukes and already has biological and chemical weapons.

How can we just ignore the consequences of letting someone like Hussein who has connections to terrorists including Al-Queda, who hates the United States, have nuclear weapons? I mean, what do you say after 3 or 4 US cities disappear under mushroom clouds, "Whoops? Maybe we should have done something?" Isn't that what we're saying about Afghanistan now? Didn't we know that Al-Queda was a threat before 9/11 and Afghanistan was their home base? Didn't we know that like Hussein, they harbored ill will towards the United States and wanted to do us harm? Did we not largely choose to ignore the situation in Afghanistan just like Clinton is suggesting that we do with Saddam now? Can we afford to let this Saddam do as he pleases even if it means millions of Americans may very well die because of it one day? Bill Clinton and the Democrats say 'yes.' George Bush and the Republicans say 'no.'

I'm with W. and the rest of my fellow GOPers on this one....

What The 'Real UN' Is Like: Jonah Goldberg has an excellent column out today about the UN and Iraq. There are without a doubt people out there who think that getting UN approval for our invasion of Iraq somehow legitimizes it or at least gives it more moral authority. However, getting the approval of the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council has absolutely nothing to do with ethics or morality and everything to do with economics. Here is what China, France, and Russia want in return for putting the precious UN stamp of approval on our Iraqi invasion....

"China's vote -or abstention, same difference -is considered the cheapest since it has so few commercial interests in Iraq. All they want is for the United States to either support, or turn a blind eye to, a Chinese crackdown on Muslim minorities in Western China. The United States also tossed into the pot an agreement to soften its stance toward the Tibet issue; we're leaning on the Dalai Lama to lighten up in his negotiations with the Chinese government.

And then there's Russia. Russia's interests in Iraq aren't as big as France's but they're still considerable. First, Iraq owes the Russians $8 billion, and Russia wants its dough. A starting point of any conversation about Russian support is a promise that Russia will be paid back. Other chips in the deal include America's support for Russia's WTO bid and a quieter U.S. State Department when it comes to Russian human rights abuses in Chechnya and Georgia."

Anyone who thinks there is some sort of principle involved here or that France, China, and Russia care one way or the other about how many Iraqis get killed or whether Saddam stays in power or not, is gravely mistaken. So if you are a "UN Believer" who thinks that the UN has some sort of moral superiority, ask yourself why you believe that? All we're doing is negotiating a price for the invasion, who's right or wrong isn't even going to be factored into the equation. I already don't care what the UN thinks, but why should anyone care what they think if the US, or any nation for that matter, can simply and openly buy them off? This my friends is what the 'real UN' is like and why no one but the ignorant and the hopelessly naive believe they have any sort of 'moral authority.'

How Flattering!: Dawn Olsen on yours truly...

"John Hawkins - I have dreams of you and I having heated debates about our differing points of view that quickly turns into heated hot monkey sex - you make me want to be a Republican =)"

Now ladies -- that is how you compliment a man! =D

A Coversation About Abortion: I had a discussion with Dawn Olsen from Up Yours And More Helpful Tips about abortion. I thought you might find it interesting so I decided to post it...

John Hawkins: If you can convince me that life doesn't begin at conception -- then you have a good chance of changing my view on abortion.

Dawn: Conception is scientific - life is when an entity can support itself that is about 24 weeks after conception. That is a fact.

John Hawkins: A newborn baby can't support itself.

Dawn: Sorry, but its body can function without the mother's body. Nice try - got another?

John Hawkins: It has to be cared for constantly or it will die.

Dawn: So do plants - I kill them all the time.

John Hawkins: Try again on what? I just refuted what you said -- 'Life is when an entity can support itself' -- Babies can't support themselves.'

Dawn: Their bodies can live outside the womb. Prior to that they are a host, a parasite.

John Hawkins: Even if the baby can't live outside the womb -- why does that mean they are not alive? All humans go through that exact same phase.

Dawn: So what if all human go through the same phase, it is biological. I love children but that doesn't mean all pregnancies should be foisted on society. You have to look at the greater good - well loved and cared for children who are afforded every opportunity to grow and are nurtured help society - that is the strongest case for abortion I can think of.

John Hawkins: Could you not make the same case for letting Andrea Yates go then? Obviously those kids were not going to be 'loved and cared' for as they should have been?

Dawn: That is entirely different - and a pointless argument. You are opening yourself up for a major smackdown.

John Hawkins: "Well loved and cared for children who are afforded every opportunity to grow and are nurtured help society." That would not apply to Andrea Yates' or Susan Smith's kids and you used that as a reason to have an abortion. So why wouldn't it be a reason just to kill them?

Dawn: Those children were sentient beings long out side the womb, as soon as they were born they had rights and protection of the law to not be murdered. Biology was not a factor.

John Hawkins: Well I think inside or outside the womb is an arbitrary distinction -- all children have to go through a phase inside the womb.

Dawn: No, no - I said abortion should be legal and an option for individuals who society would be better off not having had as parents. It is far less painful for a non-entity that knows nothing of love and nurture to be discarded and wait for his or her "soul" to be presented again at a later time, than to be mistreated and forced to adapt in a world that is ill-equipped to deal with their life of maltreatment.

John Hawkins: I can't say that I agree with that argument because you could use that same argument for countless people who are alive today -- prisoners -- orphans -- etc.

Dawn: Until men can bear children, they understand nothing of the complexities of the phases of pregnancy or the emotions of it.

John Hawkins: I understand that pregnancy is complex and emotional -- but when there is a human life at stake I don't think we can use that as an excuse to kill a child either -- I'm sure Andrea Yates was complex and emotional when she killed her kids.

Dawn: John - your Andrea Yates analogy is completely erroneous and you are aware of it - you should know better than to have an emotional debate on matters of legality.

John Hawkins: I don't think so -- I don't see a lot of difference between Andrea Yates and the average woman who aborts her kids -- the kids would have been just as dead if she aborted them right?

Dawn: Our laws uphold the right to have an abortion - I feel that is the right thing to do up to the point where a fetus is viable outside the womb - anything beyond that - I am with you in spirit and belief. Andrea Yates does not have the right legally to hunt down her children methodically and murder them with her bare hands - everyone would agree that is legally wrong.

John Hawkins: Right -- we've declared it legal for a mother to abort her baby -- but illegal to kill the baby after it's born -- the end result is the same however -- dead children.

Dawn: It is not a baby, use the right terminology.

John Hawkins: I would say it is, after conception -- it is a baby IMO.

Dawn: Not according to medical experts. You are talking about emotions and religion not fact and law.

John Hawkins: There certainly is a legal difference between someone who has an abortion and Andrea Yates -- absolutely. But I'm arguing that morally -- there is no difference.

9/11 Forced Us Back To Reality: For the most part, the eighties and nineties were a time of peace and prosperity for the United States. Reagan repaired the damage Carter did the economy and got us moving in the right direction again. Bush won an almost 'bloodless' Gulf War and presided over the collapse of the Soviet Union (although Reagan did the real work). Clinton coasted and lied his way through another prosperous eight years and life was good.

But as Herbert Spencer said, "The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools."

All of our success did indeed "fill the world with fools" and their foolish ideas -- until 9/11 happened and changed everything. Here are some of the fallacies that were taking root pre-9/11 in America...

Before 9/11 -- People were pushing multiculturalism and telling us that the all cultures were equal.

After 9/11 -- Americans for the first time in recent memory started paying attention to other cultures and came to the conclusion that no, they're not all equal. Cultures that produce Pakistani tribesmen who sentence women to be gangraped and oppressive thugs who force women to wear burqas are not our equal.

===

Before 9/11 -- The United States and Europe were strong allies who might squabble but would ultimately cooperate in crisis

After 9/11 -- Europe (other than Britain) are no longer reliable allies now that the Soviet Union has collapsed.

===

Before 9/11 -- We needed to pay attention to the UN and try to work with them on any sort of military action.

After 9/11 -- The UN is no more relevant than the League of Nations was. Their opinion really doesn't matter that much anymore.

===

Before 9/11 -- Nations like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt were our friends

After 9/11 -- The US has no nations that are friendly to us run by dictators. In fact, it's in our interests to see every nation in the Middle East become a Democracy.

===

Before 9/11 -- After the Gulf War, Somalia, Kosovo, and Bosnia the Democrats have shaken their "it's going to be another Vietnam" reaction to every crisis requiring the use of the military...

After 9/11 Between Al Gore's flip-flop on Iraq, Daschle's hysterical shrieking on the Senate floor, and David Bonoir and Jim McDermott giving 'aid and comfort' to the enemy in Baghdad, Democrats have revealed themselves to be just as untrustworthy on national defense as they ever were.

===

Fallacies like these die slowly but they are dying and they will continue to fade away until they're gone.

Recommended Books: Here are a few books I'd recommend to go along with the websites I recommended earlier...

-- The Way Things Ought To Be by Rush Limbaugh is a book every Conservative should read. Reagan and Limbaugh are the two men I give the most credit to for the rise of Conservatism since 1980. This book does an excellent job of breaking down how Limbaugh thinks...

-- The Fountainhead & Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand are both books that influenced my thinking as I was growing up, particularly Atlas Shrugged.

-- Bias by Bernard Goldberg and Slander by Ann Coulter do an outstanding job of exposing the left-wing bias of the mainstream press.

-- PJ O'Rourke has written several books that do a great job exposing you to how government and the world works while making you laugh at the same time. I'd recommend Give War A Chance, All The Trouble In The World, Parliment Of Whores, & Holidays In Hell in particular.

-- We often tend not to forget how much war has shaped our lives and the world as a whole. Reading 100 Decisive Battles: From Ancient Times to the Present by Paul Davis and Culture And Carnage by Victor David Hanson will remind you.

-- The finest book I've ever read about foreign policy was written in the 16th century by Niccolo Machiavelli. Much of the The Prince can be directly applied to 'war on terror' which is more than you can say for most books that are pushing 500 years old.

-- I sincerely enjoyed the Book Of Virtues by William Bennett even though it's full of fairy tales and stories. Look at it as light and uplifting reading...

That should give you enough reading material to make it through the next few months...

Some Of My Favorite Political Websites: Last week, I put up a list of political websites that I hit every day. Well here are some of the websites I hit multiple times during the week. These are all excellent sites and I'd strongly recommend them as well...

Cold Fury, File 13's Amish Tech Support, Rachael Lucas, Daily Pundit, Damian Penny, The Indepundit, Up Yours And More Helpful Hints, Pejman Pundit, Scrappleface, Juan Gato, The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiller, Matt Welch, NZ Bear, & The Corner.

Democrats And The Pursuit Of Power: Democrats have always supported activist judges who are willing to ignore the law and the Constitution in order to help promote their ideology. The Democratic Party never cared that Bill Clinton was a liar or whether he broke the law. In the 2000 election, the Democrats treated the election laws of Florida as if they were irrelevant. In fact, they seemed determined to simply count the same votes over and over until they found some way to declare Al Gore the winner.

Now the Democrats are once again hoping that Democratic judges will ignore the law in an effort to help the Democrats retain control of the Senate. It doesn't matter that Torricelli dropped out of the race two weeks too late for a replacement to named under the law. The Democrats couldn't care less that some absentee ballots have already been cast.

You see, the Democrats don't care about the law if they benefit from breaking it. Do you hear any Democrats stepping up to sat that either Torricelli should stay in the race or that the Democrats should concede? All I can say is that I'm glad that there's no way that the Democrats could take over if a Republican President were to die. Draw your own conclusions as to why that is...

The Changing Standards For Inspections: Sending arms inspections into Iraq isn't going to accomplish anything. Saddam has had an entire decade to hide his weapons of mass destruction which is going to make it very difficult for the inspectors to find anything. Even if they do start to get close to something, Saddam will just have his men delay the inspectors or he will move the WMD to one of the areas that are off-limits to inspections (like his palaces.) If worse comes to worse and the inspectors do find something, it doesn't really make any difference because surely by this time Saddam has multiple sources for all of his WMD. So if let's say the inspectors find a batch of anthrax in a hospital, it's not as if Saddam doesn't have a dozen more sources producing anthrax across the country that the inspectors won't know about.

This is why President Bush in his speech to the UN did not demand inspections, but instead said, "If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles and all related material."

Soon after that, the Iraqi regime said they, "unconditionally accepted the return of U.N. weapons inspectors." Well, I told you that didn't even meet the first of Bush's five conditions for peace so it didn't mean anything but lefties across the world were screaming, "Bush won't take 'yes' for an answer." To the surprise of no one (no Conservatives anyway), Saddam and company soon declared that palaces were off limits and started playing the same old games they did before.

Now the UN seems ready to totally give in to Saddam...

"Charles Duelfer, the former deputy chief inspector, said over the weekend that he feared that Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector, would concede too much during the discussions with Baghdad officials on practical arrangements for inspections.

In particular, he fears that, without a fresh U.N. resolution to change the ground rules, Mr. Blix will give in to Iraqi demands to restrict inspectors' access at key locations. These include eight presidential palaces and dozens of other "sensitive sites" around the country."

How hard is it supposed to be to hide weapons of mass destruction when you can make areas like "palaces" & "the headquarters of the ruling Ba'ath Party, the Republican Guard and the Special Republican Guard, the Ministry of Defense in Baghdad, and engineering and academic research centers" off-limits to inspectors as Saddam did back in 1998?

Anyone who is telling you that inspectors would be anything other than a farce at this point is either hopelessly naive at best or is deliberately trying to deceive you at worst. Inspections for WMD in Iraq are futile and a waste of time and any knowledgeable and honest person should be willing to acknowledge that fact.

Losing By Taking The Low Road With Torricelli: The Democrats made their own bed with Robert Torricelli in New Jersey and now they're going to have to lie in it. When Torricelli got busted taking bribes the Democrats should have drummed him right out of the race and picked a new candidate then. But New Jersey leans left and is famously tolerant of corrupt politicians so the Democrats whitewashed Torricelli's ethics violations and hoped they could keep things under wraps until after the election. Rush Limbaugh's theory (which I agree with) was that the Democrats were hoping that Torricelli would win the election. Then, sometime early next year, they'd claim that "new information" had come forth in the Toricelli bribery case. Because of that, they'd force "the Torch" to resign and they'd stick a new, less embarrassing candidate in his seat to serve out the remainder of his term.

But unfortunately for the Dems, Torricellis' lack of ethics caught up to him before the election, not after. A poll I linked yesterday showed that Torricelli is now down 4 points (some polls had him down 13 points) to his opponent Doug Forrester after having been up 14 points.That prompted lefty pollster John Zogby to opine, "Torricelli looks like toast." That's huge because as Marshall Wittmann of the Hudson Institute said, "New Jersey is the key. This is an unexpected 'gimme' for the Republicans. If the GOP can win there, it is likely that Republicans will regain the Senate."So today (undoubtably after a lot of behind the scenes arm twisting), Torricelli decided to pull out of the race so the Democrats could replace him with a new candidate.

However, there are three problems for the Democrats. One, they haven't even decided on who their candidate is going to be. Two, with only 36 days left in the race it's probably going to be an uphill battle for their new candidate to win although in a left-leaning state like New Jersey it wouldn't be unthinkable for a new candidate to win. But third and most importantly, it's ILLEGAL for the Democrats to change candidates at this point. According to Tim Russert, "New Jersey law says you must make a change 51 days before the election. We're only 35 days away. They're going to have to petition the court." But just like in Florida after the 2000 election, Democrats are hoping that partisan judges will ignore the law in an attempt to help their party acquire power. Again, from Tim Russert,

"Ironically, the New Jersey Supreme Court used to have three Republicans, three Democrats, one independent until three weeks ago, when the Democratic governor appointed a longtime Democratic ally, now giving them four Democrats on that court. The governor is a Democrat, as is the attorney general. When a state controls that kind of election machinery, they sometimes get what they want done."

Democrats willing to do anything, even subvert the law in the naked pursuit of power? No way, not the party of Al Gore. Despite the shenanigans that the Democrats have been pulling in the New Jersey race, they have an uphill road to travel that is entirely of their own making with the US Senate on the line. Let's hope that they don't make it....

W. And The Upside-Down Book: I received an email today from RWN reader Doug Weinberg commenting on the doctored photo of President Bush holding an upside-down book that has been making the rounds in leftist circles. Of course, the geniuses who think GWB is an idiot swallowed the photo hook, line, and sinker. Then Snopes came along and pointed out the obvious -- that the pic had been photoshopped. This whole thing inspired Doug to make his own graphic....

We can file this one away with W. having the lowest IQ of any President in the last 50 years & Bush waving at Stevie Wonder among others.

However, if you do want to read about a couple of stories about Bush that turned out to be true, his conversation with Lindsey Yeskoo & his salute of Brian Birdwell will tell you something about the type of man he really is.

Public Service Announcement For The Blogosphere: Can I make a suggestion to all the webmasters out there who are still on Blogspot? Do whatever you have to do to get away from Blogspot --ASAP. Pay for a server, find a free server, get a friend to host you, do whatever you have to do but do it in a hurry. They are so slow that they're KILLING your traffic. I know they're hurting some of you because despite the fact that I'm always on a high speed connection, I often can't get to web pages hosted on Blogspot. I'll grant you that sometimes it's just unbelievably slow -- but if it's that slow for me, how bad is it for people on dial-up?

Blogger might have gotten the ball rolling, but they've let their company fall apart. Even though I was on Blogger Pro, the service was horrible. There was no response to support questions, they were slow, they were down a lot, the archives didn't work, and there were problems with the permalinks. Judging by what I'm hearing lately, it's gotten worse since then, not better. So find a way to get away from blogspot at a minimum and blogger if possible -- for the sake of your blog.

Which Side Are These Guys On?: David 'Bin' Bonoir (D - Iraq) and 'Baghdad' Jim McDermott (D - Iraq) spent the weekend in Baghdad acting like publicity agents for the Iraqi government....

"Speaking of the administration, Mr. McDermott said, "I believe that sometimes they give out misinformation." Then he added: "It would not surprise me if they came up with some information that is not provable, and they've shifted. First they said it was Al Qaeda, then they said it was weapons of mass destruction. Now they're going back and saying it's Al Qaeda again."

Mr. Bonior, the second-ranking Democrat in the House, said: "We've got to move forward in a way that's fair and impartial. That means not having the United States or the Iraqis dictate the rules to these inspections."

So we have Jim McDermott, standing in Badhdad, saying for all intents and purposes that he trusts Saddam Hussein but not the President of the United States. Meanwhile, Bonoir seems to be saying that he's neutral between the United States and Iraq on the issue of inspections.

Could there be any clearer example of why the Democrats can't be trusted to protect America? Here we have Democrats in Iraq, shilling for a maniacal dictator who's seeking nuclear weapons and collaborating with the people who murdered almost 3000 Americans last September. Which side are these guys on? Judging by what they're saying, it doesn't seem to be ours. In fact, as Don Nickles said in the article, "both sound somewhat like spokespersons for the Iraqi government." Can you trust a party full of people with this sort of mentality to protect America? Do you want your life, the life of your friends and family, and even the future of our country, in the hands of people like Bonoir & McDermott when there's a war in progress? The Democrats can complain about 'politicizing the war' all they want, but this issue needs to be in front of the voters in November for the sake of our country.

The Best Quotes From Ann Coulter's 'Slander': I perused Ann Coulter's 'Slander' again tonight and picked out some of my favorite quotes to post on RWN. 'Slander' is an exceptional book that I would certainly recommend to anyone who's interested in learning more about media bias. But until you read the book, you'll have to make due with the quotes.