Pearl Harbor Day: Again, I don't normally post on the week-end, but Pearl Harbor Day should be remembered. In my mind, Pearl Harbor Day and 9/11 are forever linked. The Pearl Harbor attack began a war against the Axis Powers and 9/11 began a global war against terrorism. Winning the war today, just like winning WW2, is essential to the future of our nation.

To commemorate Pearl Harbor day, I went into RWN's speech archives, and fetched the speech FDR made one day after Japan's sneak attack. Here are FDR's words to a nation still reeling in shock...

"Yesterday, Dec. 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, Dec. 7, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire."

Iraq Has Breached The UN Resolution Again: I normally don't post the week-end but this was too good to pass up.

"Iraqi officials submitted the completed declaration on its weapons programs to U.N. arms inspectors in Baghdad Saturday, emphasizing once again that the country has no weapons of mass destruction."

Of course, that means the Iraqis have again breached the latest UN Resolution which may lead to war...

"Under Security Council Resolution 1441, Iraq must submit a full and complete disclosure of its chemical, biological and nuclear programs or face serious consequences. The United States has threatened military action and is busy building up forces in the region if Iraq does not comply."

We know definitively that Iraq has breached the latest UN resolution not simply because Britain and the US have claimed the Iraqis have weapons of mass destruction, but because the inspectors have already found WMD in Iraq. This was recounted here...

"U.N. weapons inspectors found mustard gas yesterday inside Iraqi artillery shells at a military complex north of Baghdad.

The inspectors had already known the gas and shells were stored at the Muthanna military site but hadn't yet been destroyed when the previous inspection team left Iraq in 1998."

If the Iraqi list actually says they have no weapons of mass destruction (and that is how is sounds), then I don't see a reason for the inspectors to even stay in Iraq in longer. Let's go ahead and go back to the UN and get our new resolution (since President Bush has decided to go that way) and get down to business. The time for talking has long since been over and now the time for action is here.

Jonah Goldberg Explains The Problem With Foreign Policy On The Left: I was getting ready to close up shop for the week-end and settle down to do a bit of reading and html work on the page for a couple of days when I ran across another exceptional column by Jonah Goldberg. Jonah explains and complains about the left's foreign policy and what he has to say is worth being noted...

"In my current syndicated column, I complain about the tendency among liberals to argue that no liberal end should be pursued if it might also result in achieving a conservative end - or, heaven forbid, require employing conservative means. Conservatives argue that foreign policy should be conducted out of self-interest but throughout the 1990s antiwar liberals could only find enthusiasm for conflicts which were explicitly not in our national interest. Somalia and Haiti were glorious triumphs of American foreign policy. The Gulf War was tainted because it actually aligned with American interests.

...Working to make the world better is commendable. Preferring to keep things bad because you don't think people should act on different motives than your own is the stuff of narcissists, children, and fools."

Spot-on!

The Democratic Underground Thread Of The Day: The Democratic is an immese well of idiocy that is practically impossible to mine. In fact, if the idiocy of the DU were oil, we'd have a supply that could last us for 150 years. Here's the latest example -- The DU thread of the day! The title of the thread?

If the chimp get's cancer and dies, is that ok? It is with me!!!

Of course, not everyone agreed with that sentiment but here are a few that did...

nochimp04: If the chimp get's cancer and dies, is that ok? It is with me!!! I have never wished that on anybody, but i would actually enjoy the thought of bunnypants suffering a long, slow agonizing demize.

ElsewheresDaughter: Barry Crimmins had this wish and I wish it too...

"A wish for my Republican friends, may you die of your ignorance before it kills us all."

latebloomer: be careful what you wish for It might come back on you! (tho I do dig where you're comin from!)

CMT: What? and let him get the sympathy of the nation. No I don't wish it on him. I would rather defeat a healthy George W. Bush at the polls and whipe that smirk from his mouth.

Jim Sagle: Not a good idea, actually. He could commit a LOT of butchery after he began to suffer and before he became incapacitated. If he dies (and I don't mind at all if he does), I want it to be quick and painless.

Not for his sake.

For ours.

And I DEFINITELY want it to be natural. The regime would use a killing to make the dictatorship official.

At that point, this lovely thread was locked by a moderator before more Democrats could get off on fantasizing about the death of the President. By the way, these 5 posts were out of only 17 in thread. Nice, huh?

How Will We Ever Replace Those Trees?: You may have already heard of the survey from Conservation International which reveals that "untouched wilderness areas (on the planet) are 46 percent intact." So we're not running out a real estate on earth. We have plenty of room to grow despite the shrill cries from the environmentalists who claim the earth's can't be sustained with it's current population.

That 46% statistic in and of itself is interesting -- but not as interesting as the quotes from some environmental whackos in this CNSNews article. The whackos in question are Brad Phillips & Russell A. Mittermeier from Conservation International. Here is what they had to say...

"To me, logging of primary forests is a 19th century colonial activity that has no place in the modern world... and it needs to be phased out as quickly as possible," Mittermeier explained.

"Most scientists believe that by 2050, we are going to have somewhere between 9 or 10 billion people. We know now that there are water shortages in parts of the world, food shortages, material shortages," Phillips said."

We already have, "controlled farm-like plantation forests" -- except we just call them forests. They're full of trees that could be put to no better use than to cut down and made into sheets of notebook paper or coffee tables. Come on, trees do grow back you know.

Then we get into Phillips' comment about, how the "world must act to control population growth to ensure the continued existence of wilderness areas." How should we do that pray tell? Chinese style forced abortions? Mandatory sterilization? I'd love to know what policies this guy would like to see put in place to "control" the population -- especially in nations where people don't want some enviro-weenie determining how many children they can have.

I wonder how much of the general public understands that the environmental movement is riddled with whackos with these sorts of opinions? As far as I'm concerned, the more people who know what the sort of things these environmental whackos believe in, the better.

You Can Help The Military This Christmas: I've been a long time reader of Ernie's House of Whoop@ss (some obscenity, some nudity, some porn links). EHOWA is a huge web page that is run by a funny (and fairly Conservative) son of a gun named Ernie. Back when I ran Brass Knuckles Webzine, we even interviewed Ernie for the page (this is a wild and raunchy read).

As you know, you're never going to get rich in the military and a lot of our soldiers simply can't afford to go home to see their families over the holidays. But there is something you can do to help. EHOWA's readers are kicking in money that Ernie is using to get members of the military home for the holidays. When you consider that these are people who are putting their lives on the line to defend our country, I think helping them to spend time with their families over the holidays is something worth doing -- especially considering that some of these soldiers may be fighting for our freedom in Iraq in the very near future.

I chipped in money last year and this year and I feel confident that Ernie will make sure the money goes where it's supposed to. If you'd like to contribute or would just like to know more, go to the following page (which is safe for work). This is the season for giving and I hope you'll consider helping the men and women who are willing to risk their lives for our country.

Third Parties Raise Unrealistic Expectations in Wake of Democratic Defeat: I don't know why I haven't punched up something on the third parties yet, but Dan Killian does a good job of it in this piece of satire.

Some Americans Root For Our Soldiers To Die?: So I'm reading Rachael Lucas's excellent blog and I run across a link to a left-wing blog that has a particularly offensive post on it.

The blog is called the The One True B!x. This guy is some lefty from Oregon and he makes it pretty clear that he's rooting for American soldiers to die. Here's what he has to say...

"Look, people. Get it through those skulls which have calcified so much that they have crushed your grey matter. Soldiers do not exist only to kill. They exist to die. They exist to die to preserve, protect, and defend the ideals for which America supposedly stands.

In wars, people die. Better by far that if people need to die, it is the people trained to murder and destroy, than the people caught in the middle."

I see -- he thinks American soldiers are "fodder" who "exist to die." I really wish that I thought this kook was alone in his views. But unfortunately, there are plenty of lefties out there who I'm sure agree with him. I imagine that the members of the Democratic Underground who think America "deserved 9/11" probably aren't very concerned about the lives of American soldiers either. I mean if you think a bunch business people just doing their jobs deserve to die, I can't imagine you'd look at US soldiers that much differently. To be honest, I'm more sad than angry to see certain sectors of the American left stooping to this level. I may be a big fan of FDR or Kennedy, but at least both of them were strongly behind the people out there defending our freedom.

America's Popularity Drops -- So What?: According to the much heralded "Pew Global Attitudes survey", America is not as popular as it used to be. The main thrust of the press coverage of this survey has been centered around the negative. Mainly the fact that the "favorability ratings for the U.S. have fallen in 19 of the 27 countries where trend benchmarks are available."

But actually, if you look at, the data in this report (Adobe Acrobat file), it looks pretty good. Out of 44 nations surveyed, the only nations that have a less than a 50% favorable rating of the US are Turkey (30%), Pakistan (10%), and Argentina (34%). Just to show you the contrast, the nations have a 75% favorability rating for the US or higher are Great Britain (75%), Poland (79%), Ukraine (80%), Uzbekistan (85%), Honduras (80%), Venezuela (82%), Guatemala (82%), & Kenya (80%).

To me, the most interesting number in the survey was our huge increase in popularity in Russia. We had a 37% favorability rating there two years ago but now? We're at 61%. I think Pooty Poot and W have managed to team up and put that final nail in the coffin of the Cold War.

So to conclude, even though our numbers are solid, it wouldn't matter even if they weren't. I'd certainly never back off of the war on terrorism, give up some of our sovereignty to the UN, or sign the ridiculous Kyoto Treaty just to make people in other nations happy. Like Charlton Heston said, "Popularity is history's pocket change. Courage is its true currency." Having the courage to do keep the right things for our country is far more important that trying to make the rest of the world love us.

Saddam's Neck In The Noose: We're three days away from the 8th, the date Saddam has to declare all of his weapons of mass destruction and it's looking like the El Presidente isn't going to come clean. That's not a big surprise -- I predicted as much back on November 19th...

"So since Bush isn't going back to the UN Security Council now (after Iraq fired on our planes), that tells me he believes he has an ace in the hole coming up in December. My best guess is that we either believe Saddam is going to claim he has no WMD or he's going to drastically under report what he has. Then, we're going to send the inspectors to sites all over Iraq right after the 12/08/02 deadline where they'll either be obstructed or will prove Saddam is lying. At that point we go back to the UN Security Council, they'll get on board for an attack, and we'll be ready to invade by January with all of our weak kneed allies on board. "

Things are going to quickly come to a head if and when Saddam declares he has nothing -- since we know a lot more about what he has than we've been letting on. Here's a quote from today's Washington Times...

"U.S. officials said the administration has been withholding detailed intelligence on hidden Iraqi arms programs from U.N. inspectors. The information deals mostly with Iraq's covert chemical and biological arms.
"We do not want to tip our hand," the official said.
One piece of intelligence includes details on a cache of more than 1,800 gallons of anthrax spores, the officials said. Even tiny amounts of anthrax can be lethal. Less detailed intelligence has been gathered on Iraq's efforts to build nuclear weapons, the officials said.
The intelligence on the hidden weapons is said to be reliable and will be used to verify whether information presented by Iraq in its declaration is accurate."

So very soon I wouldn't be surprised to see Iraq caught in a very embarrassing trap. Either the inspectors will run across a huge cache of WMD or Iraq will refuse to let the inspectors into a site containing them. Then Bush will go back the UN Security Council and it'll be time to get down to the business of putting Saddam on a slab. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say that we'll have a UN Security Council Resolution supporting an Iraqi invasion before the end of the year. Time will tell if I'm right...

Ice Storm 2002: As some of you probably already know, Charlotte NC has been pummeled with a mixture of ice and rain since yesterday afternoon. It was an odd storm to say the least. Although it wasn't all that cold and the roads never seemed get all that bad (at least while I was out yesterday), massive amounts of ice formed on all the trees and powerlines. At last count we had 225k people in Charlotte and around a million and a half in the surrounding area without power. Just to put things in perspective, after Hurricane Hugo hit us we only had around 700k people in the surrounding area without power and it took the power company two weeks plus to get everyone's juice flowing again back then.

Personally, I do have power (although my company doesn't) but my cable service is out of commission and Time Warner told me they "hoped" to have it back up before the week-end. Outside of my apartment, there are 5 forty foot pine trees that have snapped in half. They've even declared a state of emergency in Charlotte and some of the surrounding areas.

On the other hand, working for an internet wholesaler has its advantages. One of them being this dial-up connection I'm using to make this post. Unfortunately, I'm a little handicapped by the slow speed (it's 52.0 KBS but that's slow compared to cable), because this is the first time today I've been able to connect, and by the fact I'll have to share this connection. So posting may be a little lighter than normal tonight and tomorrow depending on how things go with my Road Runner connection...

***Update***: My cable connection is back up.

The Best Quotes From South Park: Back in October, Stephen Stanton wrote a piece for Tech Central Station called, "South Park Republicans." That article got a lot of attention -- including some from me. I've been a "South Park Republican" for a long time and I'm big fan of the show. So in honor of South Park, I've decided to compile a list of my favorite quotes from the program. Do keep in mind that South Park is obscene, controversial, and is oftentimes deliberately offensive. It's not everybody's cup of tea and if you're easily offended, you might even want to skip these quotes. But if you're a South Park fan -- you're going to like what you see. Read and enjoy...

Thanks For The Traffic: Since 2002 is winding down, I wanted to show a little appreciation to the people that have sent RWN traffic over the past 8 months. In April, RWN was averaging around 300 readers per day. Now on normal day (during the week), RWN is pushing 2500 daily uniques. That's largely due to the people that plugged us on their pages. So since they've scratched our back, it's their turn to get a scratch back. Here are 15 the web pages that have sent RWN the most traffic since April this year...

15) Whatever Dude
14) The Spoons Experience
13) EHOWA (Some Obscenity And Nudity)
12) Zfilter
11) Rachael Lucas
10) Newsfilter
9) Daily Pundit
8) Taegan Goddard's Political Wire
7) Frontpage Magazine
6) Tim Blair
5) Vodka Pundit
4) Little Green Footballs
3) Madville
2) Instapundit
1) Fark

Thanks for all traffic!

Get Off Of Hootie's Back: I'm so sick of this lame non-controversy over whether Augusta National Golf Club should admit a female member. So what if Martha Burk and the rest of the feminist nags in NOW think Augusta should admit a female member? Does anyone other than the media care what NOW thinks about anything?

Despite what seems to be almost total non-interest in this issue amongst the general public, Tiger Woods has been incessantly pressured to get behind the NOW nags on this issue. Since Tiger declined, the media has moved on to new targets. Now they're bothering Jack Nicklaus and Arnold Palmer. Neither of them has anything to say about Augusta's membership policies either.

Despite all of the whining from the media and the NOW witches, Augusta club chairman William "Hootie" Johnson has refused to allow a female member into the club. I applaud him for that. Not because I care one way or the other whether Augusta adds a female member, but because I admire Johnson for standing up for what he thinks is right despite the media pressure.

Moreover, Johnson is right, we have plenty of other single sex organizations in this country. Hey, Hooters only hires female waitresses right? Just a few miles from where I live here in Charlotte, NC there are female only gyms. We even have single sex public schools in this county. So what is supposed to be wrong with having a private golf club that only has male members if that's what they want to do? I'll answer my own question -- there's nothing wrong with it and the media and NOW gang should get off of Hootie's back.

Blame America?...Godd@mn Right...!: There is nothing that frosts a liberal more than questioning his Patriotism or accusing him of "unamerican." However, whenever you see someone verbally attacking America in general or patriotic people in particular, it's almost a given that they'll be left-wingers and that they'll be backed up by other lefties. While the majority of Democrats and liberals are just as patriotic as anyone, there is a significant, vocal, unpatriotic, anti-American part of the Democratic base. These aren't fringe loonies either -- they're an accepted part of the Democratic "mainstream." If you want to know the type of people I'm talking about, look at some of the following quotes from a thread at the Democratic Underground called, "Blame America?...Godd@mn Right...!". While not everybody in the thread agreed, as you'll see, there are plenty of Democrats out there who hate their own country and aren't shy about letting people know. Don't believe me? Well after you read the latest anti-American episode of ACPOTI (anyone can post on the internet), you'll know better...

South Park Quotes Needed: I figured I'd get into the spirit of the whole "South Park Republicans" thing by punching up some of my favorite quotes from the show. That's going to be coming out tomorrow. If you have any quotes from the show you'd like to see included, feel free to post them here.

Evaluating The Democratic Candidates For President In 2004: I punched a breakdown of the possible contenders on the Democratic side for the biggest prize in politics. I covered the top dogs, the dark horses, and even the ultra-long shots. Here's the breakdown....

Hillary Clinton: Honestly, I think Hillary could win the Democratic nomination if she decided to run. But winning the Presidency? That's another matter. Although she has been tarred by her husband's high negatives, she does not have his charisma. Moreover, I do think she'd have trouble pulling in the swing vote while on the other hand, the possibility of another Clinton getting into the White House would probably result in massive turnout from the Conservative base who detest her. That being said, I doubt if Hillary will run in 2004 unless Bush's popularity plunges. But in 2008 -- look for Hill to get in the game.

Tom Daschle: Now viewed by many Democrats as a wishy-washy loser who couldn't hold on to the Senate, Daschle has no chance of taking the nomination.

Gray Davis: There was a lot of talk about Davis as a candidate back in 2000 but now? Davis has titanic negatives in his own state and barely beat personality free political novice Bill Simon in the 2002 elections. I don't see Davis even bothering to throw his hat in the ring at this point.

Howard Dean: There are a lot of diehard Howard Dean fans out there on the left who'd love to see this relatively unknown Vermont Governor get the nomination. However, he's really not a great candidate. When I caught him on Hannity and Colmes one of the things he was really pushing was getting rid of the Bush tax cut so government could provide "more services". I can just see the "tax and spend liberal" commercials now. I just don't see Dean can winning a national election by plugging less tax breaks and more government services.

John Edwards: I'm from North Carolina so I've gotten a chance to see a lot of John Edwards and I can't say that I'm impressed. He's another one of these dark horse candidates some Democrats like because women think he's attractive and he has a decent personality. But he hasn't been particularly impressive in his talkshow appearances and he's not even that popular here in North Carolina. The last poll I saw showed Bush beating Edwards comfortably here and despite the fact that Edwards campaigned hard for Erskine Bowles, Elizabeth Dole still cleaned Bowles' clock. I really can't see Edwards winning a national election, but I think he might get serious consideration as a vice-presidential candidate if someone other than Gore wins.

Diane Feinstein: There was some noise being made about ultra-lefty Diane Feinstein tossing her hat the ring but it doesn't look like she's going to take the plunge. Maybe they finally polled somewhere other than California, New York, and Massachusetts and found out her numbers weren't so great among people who didn't view themselves as ultra-liberals.

Dick Gephardt: Everything I said about Daschle applies to Gephardt except moreso. Worse yet, Gephardt really irritated the Democratic base by coming out strongly for the invasion of Iraq. I can't imagine how Gephardt could possibly win the nomination. I wouldn't even bother trying at this point if I were him.

Al Gore: Gore is way out ahead of the competition, but his support is very soft and it's getting softer as Gore flip-flops on the issues. Recently Gore changed his position on the war in Iraq (he's now against it), he came out for nationalized health care after ripping Bill Bradley for supporting it in 2000, and Gore and his wife have been endlessly whining to the press about how they think Gore won the 2000 election. That sort of carping isn't exactly Presidential. Combine all of that with Gore's monotonous speech patterns and the perception that he'll say ANYTHING to become President and Gore looks like a stone cold loser in 2004. After all, if he couldn't beat Bush in 2000 when Gore was much politically much stronger after having spent 8 years in the public eye and Bush was much weaker, how can Gore possibly pull it off in 2004 unless Bush completely collapses? Gore isn't a great candidate and most Democrats know it -- but he'll probably get the nod anyway.

Gary Hart: After 8 years of Clinton, running around with Donna Rice doesn't like such a big deal anymore. But Gary Hart missed his chance in 1988 and really don't see him coming out of mothballs to win the primaries, much less the election. If Hart throws his hat in the ring I don't see him going very far.

John Kerry: Kerry is getting a lot of favorable attention of late because women think he's good looking and he has nice hair, and more importantly because he's a war hero. Democrats love to run candidates with military experience since they believe it helps distract people from the inept bungling that passes for foreign policy on the left. But Kerry is not exactly charismatic -- nor is he particularly interesting. In fact, Kerry was almost universally savaged by the left and the right after multiple TV appearances this week-end. The fact that Kerry, a guy that even many Democrats don't think is likable, is considered the #2 candidate in the field for the Democrats is a bad sign.

Joseph Lieberman: Supposedly, Lieberman isn't going to run if Gore does, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him enter the frey anyway. Unfortunately for Lieberman, he's viewed by much of the Democratic base as too Conservative, too pro-Israel, and too pro-war to be an acceptable Democratic candidate. Unfortunately for the Dems, Lieberman would probably give them their best chance to actually win in 2004 out of the candidates who are running, but I don't see him getting out of the primaries. As a sidenote, if Gore wins the primaries, I don't expect him to name Lieberman as his VP for his next run at the White House.

John McCain: This is a real long shot, but I wouldn't put it past McCain to switch sides and run as a Democrat in 2004. That being said, McCain is too Conservative and Pro-War for the Democratic base and I can't see the Dem's candidate. Actually, McCain would be most dangerous and an independent because he might be able to siphon off enough votes to cost Bush the election.

Al Sharpton: Of course, Sharpton has no chance of winning the primaries. But he's not running to win anyway. He is actually trying to squeeze out Jesse Jackson as the top power broker the Democratic party has to deal with to try to deliver the black vote. On the upside, Sharpton is such a loose cannon that I could see him doing something stupid that hurt the Democrats out of spite or because he didn't think the party bosses were paying enough attention to him. So run Al, run!

Happy Trails South Korea: You know, I understand how having two foreign soldiers accidentally run over two teenagers in your country during a military exercise could make people angry. I also can see how South Koreans might distrust the military court that ruled that the soldiers weren't responsible for the accident because faulty equipment was to blame.

That being said, the petty anti-Americanism in South Korea is getting to be just a little bit much for my taste. Yes, two soldiers accidentally killed two Korean girls. On the other hand, the US has 37k soldiers guarding South Korea from their northern brethren. That's dangerous work, it's not cheap, and to be frank, we could probably use those 37k soldiers elsewhere in the war on terrorism.

But do we get any thanks for those soldiers or for the 54,246 Americans who died in the Korean war? No, instead we get protest marches, our soldiers assaulted, firebombs thrown at our bases, and people putting up signs saying, "No Americans Allowed" in their restaurants.

I tell you what, if the people of South Korea don't want us in their country, then let's leave. Let the protestors deal with that psychotic, little nut Kim Jong Il, his huge army, and the two nuclear weapons he probably has. My guess is that if we left, South Korea wouldn't have to worry about Americans eating in their restaurants because Korea would finally be united after a bloody war and the South Koreans would be eating grass and moss off of rocks like the people in the North. Maybe Mr. "US troops. Go out!" thinks South Korea will be fine without our help. By all means -- let's find out. After we leave and North Korea's troops start massing on the border call Kofi Annan -- he'll take care of things -- or maybe Jacques Chirac or Gerhard Schroeder will be willing to put their troops in harms way to protect South Korea. So if Mr. "US troops. Go out!" and his ilk really want the big, ugly Americans to go home -- they only have to get their leaders to ask. Go for it South Korea -- I dare you...

Smaller Government Is Better Government: I received the following email yesterday...

"In your definition of "right wing" and "conservative" in the FAQ (What Do You Mean By 'Right Wing'?), you state that folks of this bent are generally for "smaller government". How does a "right winger" square that desire (which seems sensible enough because it leaves more money a taxpayer's pocket, right?) with the current administration's recent creation of the new dept. of homeland defense which is certainly BIGGER government? Wouldn't a true conservative want rather to identify problems in the CIA and FBI and streamline those existing departments before generating a huge new bureaucracy?

Nate Berry"

Actually, I agree with the gist of Nate's letter. I don't think creating a massive new Federal agency is a good idea and I tend to suspect that not only will it end up costing us more, but I doubt it it'll make us one bit safer. Have you heard that old saying, "The bigger they are, the harder they fall?" Well in government it goes, "The bigger they are, the more of your money they waste, the more red tape they produce, and the less productive the government workers become."

Furthermore, I was opposed to the bloated farm bill the President passed and I'm staunchly against the new per drug benefit that is probably going to be passed in early 2003. While it's understandable that we've increased defense spending since we're in a war, the logical thing for us to do, especially when we're running a deficit, is to cut spending in other areas to make up for it. But the truth is, George Bush is not fiscally Conservative. He is willing to "buy" votes with pork and he doesn't seem to be serious about decreasing the size of government. During the Reagan years we may have had insane spending increases that outstripped even the massive amounts of new revenue Reaganomics brought in, but at least Reagan was building up our woefully underfunded military and had a free-spending Democrat controlled congress to deal with. Bush is in a much better situation, yet not only doing very little to reign in pork barrel spending, he's actually driving it in some cases. While that may be good politics, it's not the Conservative thing to do and it's not good for the country and we'd all be better off if more people were willing to stand up and say so.

Pure Farkage: About 3 AM last night Fark linked RWN's The 3rd Annual 20 Worst People, Places, And Things On The Internet For 2002 article. Now, almost 10 hours later, RWN has passed the 15k daily unique mark and there are still, at least for the moment, 3000 plus pairs of eyeballs looking at the page every hour. I even got an MSN South Africa link out of the article. That's a nice day considering that yesterday I barely topped 2500 daily uniques.

As per usual, Fark's comment thread about the article was entertaining in and of itself. Here are the best of the 140+ comments on Fark about the The 3rd Annual 20 Worst People, Places, And Things On The Internet For 2002....

===

Downstairs: Wow.... this guy is going out on a limb....

he hates sites run by pedophiles, hate sites, and identity theft.

This is going to stir up some controversy!

===

Bosie: How did Gator beat out Neo-Nazis?

Hack4good: Bosie, have you ever had Gator on your system?

===

Andonbray: Wait a minute. People surf porn on the Internet?

===

ThreeLittleSmurfs: I agreed with something John Hawkins wrote ... this is ... unsettling ... to say the least.

Cyberluddite: Well, whaddaya expect from a site called "Right Wing News," I mean, obviously they've got their dittoheads up their @sses and . . . uh, wait a minute . . . there's nothing remotely controversial or political here, and I completely agree with the article. How disappointing.

ToeCutter: wow liberal-commies and facist-rightwingers agreeing; somone pinch me

Deviant: Your search - "liberals and conservatives getting along" - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:
- Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
- Try different keywords.
- Try more general keywords.
Also, you can try Google Answers for expert help with your search.

Pornosaur: I propose legislation to mark Decemeber 3rd as "The Day of Agreement."

TwistedIvory: Great googly-moogly, I feel dirty for agreeing with this list once I read the source.

RightWingNews? Wash it off me.

Liberals and conservatives agreeing? Next we'll have "cats and dogs living together!"

===

Dr Tad Winslow: What is this internet of which he speaks?

***Update***: RWN's number of daily uniques for December 3rd was...drumroll please...24,733. That's our best day ever (not counting ad campaigns I've bought that have brought in massive amounts of traffic). Thanks to Fark among others for making it possible.

9/11 Was Just What ZOG Ordered: I was looking around for another website I could use for the latest episode of ACPOTI (anyone can post on the internet) and I ran across the World Church Of The Creator web page. Apparently, they're some sort of weird racist church cult. I suppose I could have taken the time to learn more about them but their forums were overrun with same sort of racist trash I've found all over the web on Nazi, KKK, and white power sites so I didn't see the point of bothering. Maybe these guys wear Nike sweatsuits and the men castrate themselves like the kooks in the Heaven's Gate Cult instead of white sheets like the KKK. If so, let's hope that this article doesn't inspire them drink any "special kool-aid" if you know what I mean. Seriously, if any members of the World Church Of The Creator are reading, don't drink anything you haven't prepared yourself! Just watch "The Cell" & "Anaconda" over and over again until you start to find Jennifer Lopez attractive and then take a racial sensitivity course. You can rejoin society! Juding by Robert Byrd's success, you may even be elected to the Senate one day. Don't give in -- it's not too late to fight the white power! Now, on to the latest edition of ACPOTI...

Keep Your Hands Off The SUVS: There's something about SUVs that brings out the left's totalitarian streak. Just read this pretentious liberal's snide little rant about how much he hates the idea of people being able to drive whatever type of car they want...

"A reader was kind enough to send me a bumper sticker that I promptly slapped on my car. "SUVs suck terrorist oil," it reads.

I am pleased to see that my lonely crusade against SUVs is not so lonely anymore. I've been railing against these monstrosities since 1998. Till then, four-wheel-drive trucks had been bought mainly by fishermen, hunters and a handful of other people who had some actual off-road use for them. But all of a sudden, every yuppie and his trophy wife had an SUV. My daily commute became an exercise in dodging vehicles that had the handling and braking capacities of a bread truck."

Don't you get the feeling that if this guy thought the people driving SUVS were mainly animal rights activists and feminists he'd be all for SUVS? But since he thinks they're being driven by "every yuppie and his trophy wife" he wants to get rid of them. This is despite the fact that we're not running out oil. Oil is still cheap, plentiful, and easily obtainable and will probably remain that way for decades until fuel cells and electric cars become efficient enough to start challenging the internal combustion engine.

Moreover, how often have we heard left-wingers talk about how they're for "choice" and for the "little guy.? But what if the "little guy" happens to have four kids, likes to hunt, or just wants a bigger, safer car and wants to "choose" an SUV? Then the left thinks the "little guy's choice" doesn't mean squat. Why don't we let the American public drive whatever type of car they want without the government getting involved? As far as I'm concerned, if you can afford to pay for an SUV and you're willing to spend the extra money for gas, then the government and the left-wing gas fascists need to get out of your way and let your drive what you want.

God Save The Queen? God Save The British Homeowners Who Aren't Allowed To Protect Themselves: In Britain, the anti-gun, anti-victims rights loonies have gained such an upper hand that people can't even defend their own homes. Listen to these three stories -- they'll make you angry...

"A retired man I know who lives in a village was recently awoken by the noise of his front door being smashed in. He got up, was confronted by four aggressive burglars and pressed the panic button on his alarm.

A neighbour of mine was similarly attacked, only this time it was broken bottles rather than spray and it took the police two hours to arrive from a town 30 miles distant. Another couple had their dogs sprayed and were forced back to their bedroom while the thugs completed their work."

After the burglars were discovered, they even CONTINUED STEALING THE MAN'S property because they had no fear of being harmed. But what would have happened if these men had defended themselves? The article gives a couple of examples...

"On the one hand, Tony Martin was famously convicted for killing (by shooting in the back) a thief who had broken into his home. Another man was convicted for repeatedly stabbing a burglar who had broken into the flat in which he believed his children were sleeping."

In America, burglars often won't try to break into a house if they believe the occupant is there. You know why? Because the occupant may very well be armed and it's not illegal to defend your home in the US. In many American homes, if four burglars walk into someone's house armed with mace or bottles in an attempt to rob the place, their corpses will be carried out soon afterwards with sheets over their faces. That's the way it is and that's the way it should be. Your home is your castle and anyone who invades it without permission should be considered lucky to leave it any way other than feet first.

Federal Government Assures Remaining Population Will Be Obese By End Of Decade: Here's a totally unrelated story about why I hate Ronald Mcdonald. When I was seven years old, I broke my leg playing football. I was laid up in traction for six weeks. As you can imagine, I was totally and utterly miserable. So one day, I'm laying there in the hospital, hating life and stupid kid next to me who kept me up all night because he was playing with some noisy toy until like 3 in the morning and my mother shows up. She says, "John, you have a special visitor outside who's visiting sick kids. You're going to love it!" Well I get all jacked up trying to figure out who this is. Could it be my favorite football player, Franco Harris? Woah -- maybe it was Willie Mays or Muhammad Ali! Holy moly -- I was so jazzed! Then, who should walk in but Ronald McDonald. I was so bitterly disappointed that I was ready to cry and I actually snapped at Ronald for making me a balloon animal. Since then, I've hated that vile clown with a passion and I still do. Now on to the humor article....

The 3rd Annual 20 Worst People, Places, And Things On The Internet For 2002: This isn't a politically oriented article but it is a tradition from my days of doing Brass Knuckles Webzine. Brace yourself for the 3rd annual version of the list no one wants to make.