Three Strikes And You...Get A Letter?!??!?: I've been harping on Britain's insane law enforcement policies a lot lately. They persecute people who defend their homes from criminals & they've stopped even investigating, "burglary, vandalism and assaults unless evidence pointing to the culprits is easily available."

All of that is bad enough, but this is just sad and pathetic...

"Police unveiled their latest tactic in the fight against crime today - a polite letter kindly asking persistent offenders to mend their ways.

Inspector Miles said: "Of course, I'm hoping they will say: 'You're absolutely right officer, I will stop my criminal ways'."

How did all of these naive leftists end up running Britain's criminal justice system? Did they just grab a bunch of college professors and social workers and tell them to clean up the streets? I cannot imagine why the British people continue to put up with all of this mamby-pamby mush from the police. At some point, you have to think that the British people will DEMAND that the police get their acts together. For the sake of our British cousins, I hope that day will come soon.

The Way The War Is Viewed -- Before And After: We're getting very close to war and the voices of opposition are raising to a crescendo. France and Germany are thrusting their daggers into our back, the anti-war left is protesting, the UN inspectors are deliberately trying to put a good spin on Saddam's non-disarmament, and the Democrats in the Senate are making every effort to undercut the support for the war. We've heard that no "smoking gun has been found" (the empty chemical warheads & artillery shells loaded with mustard gas apparently don't count) although the inspectors are there to confirm that Saddam has disarmed, not find a smoking gun. We've heard condemnations of Bush's "rush to war" although W. has been building up to this for more than a year and has gotten authorization from Congress. People are still demanding that we go through the UN although it's obvious that at least France and Germany are willing to do anything possible to stop an invasion for their own selfish ends.

But, all of this means precisely jack squat. Do you know how the American people and the history books are going to judge this war? Really, truly, there are going to be three questions that are going to be asked....

- 1) Did we win?
- 2) How long did it take
- 3) How many American casualties were there?

The rest of it is going to largely be spin. If we win and we win big, Bush will be the genius who made a tough decision despite criticism and France, Germany, the UN, and the all these eternally questioning Democrats running for President will look like idiots. If we go into Iraq and for some reason it turns into a disaster, Bush will be the goat and all the aforementioned weasels and left-wing contrarians who've been criticizing him will be sitting pretty.

The time for talking is going to be over soon and then who was right and who was wrong in the public's eyes is going to be decided largely by what happens on the battlefield and the aftermath. That may not be what people want to believe or what they think is right, but that's the way the world works.

***Update***: I did mention the aftermath, but let me give you a little more information on what I mean by that. Not only are we going to find more weapons of mass destruction than you can shake a stick at, but we're find a lot of evidence that ties Saddam to terrorism, and the people of Iraq are going to tell stories about how Saddam treated them that'll make your hair curl. I didn't reallty go into all of that because it goes without saying, but taking all that info and throwing it back in the face of the anti-war crowd is going to be quite enjoyable.

Quote Of The Day: For those of you unfamiliar with Oriana Fallaci, she wrote a book that has been very popular in Europe called "The Rage and The Pride." The book is in the words of the article I'm quoting from, "a passionate cry in which she accuses the West of being blind to the true threat of Islam."

Well, Fallaci gets death threats, presumably from Islamists who're angry about her attacks on radical Islam. Fallaci says she lets them talk a bit and,

"Then I say, 'Do you know where it is your mother and your wife and your sister and your daughter are right in this moment? They are in a brothel of Beirut. And do you know what they're doing? They are giving away their'-I don't tell it to you, but I tell it to them-'and you know to whom? To an American. F*ck you!'"

That's so "Coulteresque" that you just have to love it!

French PM: 'It's Great to Be Collaborating with Germany Again!': Paris, France -- French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac, in honor of France's agreement with Germany to undermine America's efforts in the War on Terror, took German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder on a tour of sites in the French capital city that were visited by another German Chancellor, Adolf Hitler, during his famous Victory Tour of 1940. (Cont)

Our Tax System -- The Flatter The Better: I ran across an article by Gary Chapman in the Austin American-Statesman that I thought was worth commenting on. To begin with, Chapman tosses out some very dubious statistics about Bush's newest tax cut that he doesn't quote a source for. He also went to complain about the Conservative push for flatter tax rates which is what I wanted to discuss...

"In a message that reflects a growing resistance among the wealthy to any form of progressive taxation, The Wall Street Journal published an editorial calling for an upward adjustment on the tax rates of low-income wage earners, while at the same time The Journal editors believe tax cuts for the wealthy are imperative.

This idea has now penetrated the White House. R. Glenn Hubbard, the chairman of the President's Council on Economic Advisors, recently told the Washington Post that the "tax burden will have to begin extending backward down the income ladder." Hubbard advocated, like many Republican legislators, a "flatter" tax system, meaning less progressivism."

To begin with, I am not a rich man. Furthermore, I don't have any desire to run for office one day, so I'm not going to need any rich campaign contributors down the line. Heck, I don't even have any rich friends or relatives.

That being said, I would fully support a flat tax or a sales tax to replace our current progressive income tax. There are several reasons for that...

We currently have a lot of people in our country who pay no income tax or almost no income tax, yet they receive a lot of government services. As the chart on Rush Limbaugh's page points out, the "Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.09% of Income Taxes." This is a big problem for our country because we have roughly 50% of our population that has very little incentive to care about government spending or tax increases. What do the 50% of the people who pay almost no taxes care if some pork laden bill comes down the pike, it's not coming out of their pocket. Why should they care if taxes are being raised if it's not going to effect them? When are they ever going to support cutting services if they don't get the benefit of taxes being slashed as well?

The biggest reason we have a progressive tax system in this country is just plain, old, envy. There are a lot of people who can't stand the idea of someone else having more money than they do. They hate the idea that people like Bill Gates, Alex Rodriguez, or Ross Perot have more money than they can ever spend. In fact, there are a lot of people in this country who are so consumed jealously of the wealthy people among us, that they'd forego a tax cut themselves just to stick it to those rich guys. If you don't believe that, just look at the strategy Democrats use to attack EVERY tax cut that comes down the pike. Their general argument is always something like, sure you might have the marriage penalty removed & you might get a bigger tax credit for your kid, but some rich guy will get more than you -- so therefore you should be against it. That's the sort of thing that appeals to petty, envious people..but if it didn't work at least to some extent, the Democrats wouldn't still be using it.

Flattening out the tax rate would have a myriad of positive effects. It would severely constrain new spending and encourage tax cuts because everyone would benefit from decreased government spending. Then there's the simplification of our tax code and the possibility of sending in a 1 page tax document that would only tax a few minutes to fill out as opposed to the mess that is our current tax system.

There is even the possibility that a flax tax would increase the amount of revenue collected. Here's a little info on that from a 2002 Bruce Bartlett column...

"Finally, the Russians figured out for themselves that their tax system needed to be overhauled. Against the IMF's advice, taxes were cut, leading to increased revenue as evasion became less profitable. Two years ago, Russia initiated a major tax reform that instituted a 13% flat-rate tax system. It became fully effective last year, with the result that tax revenue jumped more than 50%, rising to 16.1% of GDP in 2001."

Last but not least, It we implemented a flat tax, I believe all the factors that we've already discussed would create an economic boom in this country that would surpass even the explosion of growth Reagan's tax cuts produced in the eighties (and we're STILL riding that wave.)

It's too bad that class warfare and the politics of envy are so ingrained in this country, because a flat tax would be the most important thing we could do to insure that the next generation of Americans would have even more plenty and prosperity than we have today.

Rumsfeld Sorry for 'Axis of Weasels' Remark By Scott Ott: (2003-01-22) -- U.S. Secretary Defense Donald Rumsfeld apologized today for referring to France and Germany as an "Axis of Weasels."

"I'm sorry about that Axis of Weasels remark," said Mr. Rumsfeld. "I didn't mean to dredge up the history France and Germany share of pathetic compliance with ruthless dictators."

The Defense Secretary said he was "way out of bounds" with the comments.

"I should have known better than to remind people that these two nations--which live in freedom thanks only to the righteous might of America, Britain and their allies--that these nations are morally and politically bankrupt, and have failed to learn the lessons of history," he said. "It really was an inappropriate thing to say--you know, the Axis of Weasels thing. I really should not have called them the Axis of Weasels. I think it's the 'Weasels' part that was most offensive...you know, when I said that France and Germany form an Axis of Weasels. Of course, I'm so sorry."

If you liked this satire by Scott Ott, you can read more of his work at Scrappleface.

100 Of The Most Popular Political Websites On The Net: I decided to update the "50 most popular political websites on the net" article. There are now a hundred websites listed and the article does a pretty decent job of listing the major political sites on the net with the exception of the newspapers and the big mainstream sites like ABC, NBC, CNN, etc.

***Update***: This article that I put together on a lark has so far drawn links from Andrew Sullivan, The Corner, and Lucianne. Of course, The Corner was questioning how accurate Alexa is and the Lucianne staff immediately closed the thread because they consider blogs as a whole to be unworthy of links (don't even get me started on that).

I've also had a couple of people point out that I missed LewRockwell.com which would have come in at #7 on the list, with an Alexa ranking of 2,403.

Last but not least, Ryan Lizza from the The New Republic wrote to say that Alexa counts www.thenewrepublic.com (20,867) & www.tnr.com (27,347) as separate web pages despite the fact that they point to the same place. If Alexa properly combined those two urls, I'm sure the New Republic would rank significantly higher.

***Update #2***: The Ludwig von Mises Institute sent me an email to point out that they're ranked 5,757. If we add in LewRockwell.com as well, that would put them in the #18 slot.

***Update #3***: Some other websites have written to say they should have been included. City Journal pointed out their rank of 57,664 which would have put them in the #65 slot in the original article. The Progressive Review slides in at 96,328 which would have left them at #80 on the original list. Politics 1 also should have been listed. They come in at 49,313 which means they deserved to be ranked #61 in the original article.

An Interview With Phyllis Schlafly: I was honored that Phyllis Schlafly agreed to do an interview via email with RWN. Mrs. Schlafly has been a leader of the Conservative movement since way back in the sixties. She is the author and editor of 20 books, her syndicated column runs in a hundred newspapers, & her radio commentaries are heard daily on 460 stations. She was also largely responsible for sinking the Equal Rights Amendment. I think you'll enjoy the interview...

Winning the Cultural War (1999) By Charlton Heston: Edward Perez sent me an email today suggesting that I add this speech to my "speech section" on RWN. After giving it a read over, I thought this speech by Charlton Heston was worthy of inclusion. Read and enjoy...

Fisking The Germans And The French In Eight Words Or Less: Ahem...here's the link...let's give it a go...

"GERMANY will use its power as incoming president of the UN Security Council to try to head off war with Iraq by asking the chief weapons inspectors to report twice in three weeks, The Times has learnt."

That the best they can do?

"Berlin's diplomatic move was launched as the allies' simmering dispute over Iraq exploded into a heated row. The French and German leaders vowed to use all their influence to stop the war, while Washington and London fumed that efforts to disarm President Saddam Hussein were being undermined at a critical stage. Behind the scenes ministers on both sides were involved in angry exchanges."

Fortunately, they have no real influence.

"President Chirac confirmed the impression of a looming clash with Washington and London by announcing that he and the German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder had agreed a common stand on Iraq. "Any decision belongs to the UN Security Council and to it alone, speaking after having heard the report of the arms inspectors, in conformity with the resolutions it has adopted," he said after a Franco-German Cabinet meeting in the Elysée Palace."

On the wrong side of history...again.

"He (Chirac) had earlier told cheering Social Democrat supporters that he would not vote in favour of "a resolution that legitimises war". Germany, which assumes the Security Council presidency in February, will either vote against a war-enabling resolution or abstain."

They obviously planned this all along.

"The widening divisions poisoned relations between the allies and led to angry scenes at Nato, where France and Germany blocked a decision on whether to prepare support for America's military build-up in the Gulf."

Let France & Germany defend Europe. Forget Nato.

"(Colin Powell) said that comments by Joschka Fischer, the German Foreign Minister, had provoked him into warning the Security Council "not to be shocked into impotence because we are afraid of difficult choices".

Impotent -- that describes France & Germany well.

"German"

Back-stabbing huns who're supplying Hussein's weapons.

"French"

Cheese-eating surrender monkey sell-outs!

***Update***: The tag-line on a Fark headline about this subject says it all,

"Pre-emptive Surrender: French President Chirac says "war always means failure."

"Pre-emptive surrender" -- now that's a great line...

Doublespeak From Hillary? No Way!: I generally don't like to compare someone to Hitler, bring up McCarthy, or invoke Orwell because the left has beaten all these comparisons into the ground. You know what I mean -- there are some Dems who use "Nazi" as a synonym for Republican, who cry "McCarthyism" every time they're criticized, and then yell "1984" whenever Bush can't give them an exact date the war on terrorism is ending.

However, every once in a while, one of these comparisons is valid. For example, think about, "War is Peace -- Freedom is Slavery -- Ignorance is Strength" and then read what Hillary Clinton had to say on Monday...

"We are reminded once again by the events of the last year that there are those who don't understand Dr. King's dream and legacy. Yes, we want to be judged by the content of our character and not the color of our skin. But what makes up character? If we don't take race as part of our character, then we are kidding ourselves."

To begin with, here is the MLK quote Hillary is referring to,

"I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character"

So we have Hillary Clinton referring to that famous quote about being judged by our character and NOT our race, presumably so she can justify race based policies that do take race into account. If you don't agree with that, it probably just means that you are one of, "those who don't understand Dr. King's dream and legacy." You can call that "newspeak", "doublespeak", whatever you want, but any intellectually honest person would have to agree that the MLK quote Hillary is bringing up is 100% at odds with the message she's trying to get across.

Moreover, let's look at the end of Hillary's quote,

"Yes, we want to be judged by the content of our character and not the color of our skin. But what makes up character? If we don't take race as part of our character, then we are kidding ourselves."

That exact same quote could have come out of the mouth of a member of the KKK or Nazi party to justify THEIR position on race. Now, I'm not suggesting that Hillary is a racist, but supporting race based policies is just as immoral today as it was in the sixties. The impact and races effected by policies like Segregation, Affirmative Action, Jim Crow laws, & racial set-asides may vary, but discrimination based on race is the reprehensible root of all these policies. A color-blind America is what we should be striving for and I hope that Democrats like Hillary Clinton will join Republicans in trying to make that dream a reality.

Thanks to Henry Hanks from Croooow blog for pointing this article to me.

Don Rumsfeld's Faux Pas: Yesterday, Rummy apologized for a remark he made on Jan 7th while disparaging Charles Rangel's lame draft proposal after the American Legion and the Vietnam Veterans of America (among others) complained. Here's what Rumsfeld had to say...

"If you think back to when we had the draft, people were brought in . . . without choices," Rumsfeld said. "Big categories were exempted: people who were in college, people who were teaching, people who were married. . . . And what was left was sucked into the intake, trained for a period of months, and then went out, adding no value, no advantage, really, to the United States armed services over any sustained period of time because the churning that took place, it took an enormous amount of effort in terms of training, and then they were gone."

Rumsfeld was obviously talking about the Vietnam war and what he said was correct. We drafted people, gave them what was really an inadequate amount of training, and sent them out to fight. Then, just as they gained experience and were becoming maximally effective as soldiers, we shipped them back home and replaced them with raw recruits. Were they brave, did they serve their country well, should they be proud of their service, & were they of "value?" Absolutely, unequivocably, yes. But, did those people add value "over any sustained period?" Because of the way the system was designed, no, for the most part they didn't. That's not their fault, it was the system's fault, and that's clearly what Donald Rumsfeld was trying to get across. You have to deliberately take what Rumsfeld said out of context by focusing on the "no value" part of it, while ignoring the "over any sustained period of time" portion of his remarks to make it into an offensive statement. Having partisan Democrats deliberately misinterpret what Rumsfeld said is no surprise, but groups like the American Legion and the Vietnam Veterans of America should know better.

Robert Fisk On Pro-Government Media Bias: I was reading Robert Fisk's latest column and of course, since it is a Fisk column, there were a half-dozen things I could have beaten Fisk worse than an Afghan refugee over. However, let's focus on one particular claim that Fisk makes that has been echoed in other places on the left...

"...Don't ask who is resisting forthcoming US censorship of the Iraq war. Ask who is first to climb aboard the bandwagon.

...Meanwhile, rest assured, the journalists are getting onside, to tell you the story the government wants you to hear."

Feel free to read the whole thing if you want to wade through Fisk's usual tripe. But the long and short of Fisk's argument is that the press is for all intents and purposes drastically censoring itself in order to please the government.

The problem with this whole idea is that the American press can be incredibly irresponsible about the things it publishes. Consider this story from Time about America's "ultra secret weapon," "high-power microwave" weapon. Time goes into detail about what the weapon will do and casually mentions, "the HPM is a top-secret program, and the Pentagon wants to keep it that way." It's not top secret anymore is it? Could it be that they wanted to keep it "top secret" because they didn't want the Iraqis to be prepared for these weapons? That's out the window now.

We've also had various papers (New York Times, I'm looking at you) publishing "secret" war plans all throughout the last year. That's totally and utterly irresponsible. All that does is help Saddam prepare for the invasion. Even if we totally change our tactics, it gives him an idea of what to expect and allows him to better plan for what he might throw at him (which means more Americans may die).

I know the response to that is, "Well the public has right to know and since we're a news agency, we have to be neutral." Excuse me, but that's horsepuck. The government is not obligated to tell the press about the details of missions our men are on, what weapons we'll be using, and when we'll be executing attacks. And if the US press somehow manages to acquire that information it's improper for them to publish it. Moreover, in a war, American journalists need to remember which side they're on. I'm not suggesting that they lie, I'm not suggesting that they ignore evidence that the government is lying, and I'm not suggesting that they pass on propaganda. But under no circumstances should they be publishing information that might put our troops in the field in risk. In short, they need to practice responsible journalism -- something that seems to be in short supply these days.

Frank Advice for the State of the Union Address By Frank J: Bush has been working on his first draft of his State of the Union address, and, since there is still about a week before he delivers it, I thought I'd give him my advice.

First thing's first, remember, it's not the content so much as the attitude. Don't have that wussy "Hail to the Chief" song playing when you enter, instead have the "Imperial March." Come in all stern-faced, and, to further show everyone you're a bad*ss, head butt the first person who tries to shake your hand. Think of what evil dictators will say when they see that. "Holy crap! He broke that guy's nose for just trying to shake his hand. Think of what he'll do to me, an evil dictator!"

Start off with a great applause line, such as raising your fist in the air and shouting, "Our enemies must suffer!"

But remember, it's not enough that our enemies get blown apart into their component particles, but, at the same time we are bombing the crap out of them, they have to see us all eating caviar and cruising around in fancy cars. That's why you should propose a huge tax cut to improve our economy.

"We should have a tax cut of epic proportions," you should say, "And most should go to the best Americans - the rich. Some may say this is unfair." You should then pause dramatically. "They will die!"

Democrats may not applaud everything that is said. Whenever they don't seem to agree with a new proposed policy, point at them and scream, "Traitors!" This will make them uncomfortable with not applauding. One may voice protest at being labeled a traitor; if that happens, shout, "Rarrrr!" and charge at him while the VP and Speaker of the House try and hold you back. The Democrats should be pretty scared by then, and will probably clap politely at whatever you say.

Don't let them off the hook, though. Single out those who are against war in Iraq. "There are some who sympathize with our enemies," you should say angrily, "But mercy is for the weak! It is the same as being our enemies' allies. Hang your gigantic head in shame, Ted Kennedy - if your neck is strong enough to support such a feat without snapping in twain." (he'll probably respond with "What neck?", but it's still a great line).

As for a finale, declarations of war will be great. Declare war on Iraq as people will expect, but also declare war on North Korea. Then pick a few other countries as a surprise (just throw darts at a map of the world; if you hit the U.S., try again).

Now say, "Some of our 'allies' will not support our plans of war, but I have one thing to say to them..." For this part, raise both fists in the air and scream as loud as possible, "DEATH!!!!" (you may need a voice coach to hit this just right)

This should be a huge applause line, even though it's not the most coherent thing ever said. If the Democrats don't give you a standing ovation, pull out a gun and shoot at their feet.

Finally, have fireworks go off indoors while you laugh insanely. Then, when the smoke fades, you should have mysteriously disappeared. If you do this right, all our enemies will be scared out of their wits, and the European leaders should wet their pants. Then they won't mess with the U.S.!

"If you like this satire by Frank J., you can see more of his work at IMAO.

Ready To Forget About The War On Terrorism?: There are plenty of people out there who are ready to pretend that the 'War on Terrorism' is essentially over. It's been a long time since Al-Qaeda has hit the US so they don't see them as a threat anymore. The global terrorist network? The terrorists and regimes that have cooperated with Al-Qaeda in the past and may do so in the future? They're nothing to worry about...so they believe. Well, there's a article from a website identified w/ Al-Queda that has been posted on the IDF web page in Israel. Here's the money paragraph from that letter titled, "Nuclear Warfare is the Solution for Destroying America"...

"...Therefore, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Even though the Americans have bombs possessing enormous power, Al-Qaeda is even more powerful than they, and it has in its possession bombs which are called "dirty bombs", and bombs with deadly viruses, which will spread fatal diseases throughout American cities . . . The coming days will prove that Kaedat el-Jihad [the Al-Qaeda organization] is capable of turning America into a sea of deadly radiation, and this will prove to the world that the end is at hand . . . Yes, we will destroy America and its allies, because they have used their power for evil against the weak. And now, the end approaches at the hand of the enlightened [Islamic] youth astride their horses [fighting the war against the infidels]; they will dismount either as victors or vanquished [i.e. - fall in holy war for Allah]..."

Are they lying? Maybe...maybe not. But, either way -- we should act as if they're telling the truth. That means we need to make every effort to keep suspected terrorists out of our country. It also means we need to do everything in our power not only to hunt down and destroy Al-Qaeda, but to destroy the global terrorist network that helps support them...unless we want to wake up one day, read the The Drudge Report and see, "DIRTY BOMB EXPLODES IN NYC! THOUSANDS SICK WITH SMALLPOX IN DC! AL-QAEDA CLAIMS RESPONSIBILITY!"

50 Of The Most Popular Political Websites On The Net: Over the last few months here at RWN, my favorite blogs have been ranked, I've had other people rank their favorite blogs, and I've regularly listed the web pages that send me the most traffic. Today, I thought it might be interesting to see which political websites actually receive the most traffic. So I picked a number of popular political websites from both sides of the ideological spectrum, sprinkled in a generous helping of popular blogs, and then I went to Alexa.com and ranked the 50 political websites that I came up with

Q: Why Did The Frenchman Try To Cross The Road? A: Just To Get In The Way Of Traffic: According to the Washington Post, the French are going to try to block an Iraqi invasion at the UN...

"France suggested today it would wage a major diplomatic fight, including possible use of its veto power, to prevent the U.N. Security Council from passing a resolution authorizing military action against Iraq.

...France would never "associate ourselves with military intervention that is not supported by the international community," (French Foreign Minister) de Villepin added. "We think that military intervention would be the worst possible solution."

Now why are the French doing this? There are a lot of different things that could be involved in their thinking. Maybe behind the scenes they aren't getting as big a share of the Iraqi oilfields as they want and this is a negotiating tactic, domestic politics may play a role, or they may even want to force the US to go it alone to drive a wedge between America and Europe so they can use it as an excuse to strengthen the flagging EU. The Washington Post suggests that opinion polls in America are influencing their decision...

"Foreign officials are also aware of polls in the United States suggesting that support for a war drops dramatically if the Bush administration does not have U.N. approval."

I've seen the same polls, but they don't reflect the reality of the situation. Americans would prefer that the Bush administration go through the UN. Some people on the left believe the UN has some sort of moral authority and of course, having the UN on board helps us build support around the world. However, the American people aren't going to turn on W. for going against the UN, especially since the UN doesn't even have the guts to enforce their own resolutions.

To be honest, I like the idea of going without UN approval. It'll cost us some short term support, but it'll also cripple the UN which is a huge long term plus in the war on terrorism and in general. In effect, the UN is nothing but the old League of Nations anyway unless we decide to take a stand on something.

In the end, unless Saddam abdicates, we're going in with or without UN approval and we're going to do it fairly soon. The momentum is simply irreversible at this point. We have too many troops in the area to wait around indefinitely and politically, Bush can't afford to let the UN torpedo the invasion. In fact, if Bush were to continue to put off the invasion or if worse yet, he allowed the UN to have a veto over what we do with our military, Conservatives would turn on him like a school of piranha. So with or without France's precious approval, we're going into Iraq -- count on it.

The Pro-Saddam Rallies: This week-end there were a couple of...well let's be honest, some people call them anti-war rallies, but they were in effect pro-Saddam rallies. These people can say what they want, but they're doing everything they can to help Saddam hold onto power. Just so you can get an idea of what actually went on there, here are a few quotes, pics, and happenings from the rallies so you can get a feel for what went on...

<---- From the San Francisco rally

"Another thing about 9/11 - the United States is like a stuck-up little b*tch. They just do and take all of what they please. I mean, 9/11 was terrible, but it was the first terrorist attack on this country. It's like, 'oh, no!' Somebody broke the United States' nail, now the whole earth is going to blow up." -- Reesa Rosenberg at the DC rally

"USA Is #1 Terrorist" & "The NYPD Are Terrorists Too" -- Placards from the DC rally

"A table display exhorting passersby to defend North Korea's right to nuclear weapons or an activist who cheered in vain for a policeman to fall off a fire-escape ladder 30-feet above a Pennsylvania Avenue restaurant were typical of the happenings at this weekend's rally cast aside by too many reporters covering the demonstration." -- From someone at the DC rally

From the San Francisco rally ---->

"Anti-Semitism was rampant at the protest. I heard the phrase "f*cking Jews" uttered by at least ten different individuals. I also heard a number of people discussing how the Israelis had infiltrated our government to commit genocide against the Palestinians." -- From the San Francisco rally

"Following the march in San Francisco, one thousand people joined a radical anti-capitalist breakaway march and militantly marched through the financial center smashing windows and graffitting the SF Chronicle, British Consulate, CitiCorp, the INS building, Starbucks, and Victoria's Secret." -- At the San Francisco rally

<---- From the Portland rally

"We won't get any justice as long as that criminal Congress is up there. We're calling for revolution. It's revolution time, brothers and sisters. We have to get rid of greedy murderers and imperialists like George Bush in the White House." -- Imam Mussa at the DC rally

And don't think that the man himself didn't appreciate all the "useful idiots" out there who were protesting the attempt to remove him from power...

"President Saddam Hussein hailed worldwide anti-war demonstrations on Saturday and said the protests showed that Iraq had international support for standing up to the United States." -- From Iraq

I think a comment from tourist Dick Sweeney to one of the protestors just about sums it all up...

"During the throng's march from Bellagio to the Tropicana and back, a few cars honked in support and a few passers-by hurled taunts.

"I remember September 11th!" Sweeney yelled back at the young man."

I Have A Dream (1963): Since today is MLK day, I thought it would be a good time to post Martin Luther King's, "I have a dream" speech. That speech is most famous for the line...

"I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

King's eloquent speech also contains a brilliant mixture of patriotic and religious themes that was designed to appeal to the American people's sense of fairness. This is a great speech by a great man, that was given during a difficult period in America's history. It's certainly well worth worth another read.

In My World: Stupid People No Like War By Frank J: This weekend anti-war whack-jobs took to the streets in a last push to preserve murderous regimes.

"War argh gurgle oil ergh BAD!" one of the more coherent protestors was heard to say.

The Whitehouse seemed unperturbed by all the demonstrations.

"I think the president welcomes the fact that we are a democracy and people in the United States, unlike Iraq, are free to protest and to make their case known," said Whitehouse Press Secretary Ari Fleischer at a press conference, never once looking up from the Gameboy Advance in his hands.

"But what about the protestors who were beaten with their own 'No Blood for Oil' signs by men who claimed to have been paid by the Whitehouse?" asked one reporter.

"I think the president welcomes the fact that we are a democracy and people in the United States, unlike Iraq, are free to yadda yadda yadda," Fleischer responded, now staring at the Gameboy quite intensely, apparently fighting a boss monster in the game Metroid Fusion that he was playing.

"You're not even paying attention to us!" shouted another reporter.

Fleischer then angrily chucked his Gameboy at the reporter, striking him in the head. "There, I paid you some attention."

"Ow! That hurt!" cried the reporter.

"Ow! That hurt!" Fleischer repeated in a high-pitch, mocking voice.

"You're the meanest press secretary ever!" the man yelled before running out of the press conference crying.

"Anyone else want to waste my time with one of your idiotic questions?" Fleischer asked angrily.

Helen Thomas then stood up.

"Merciful God, please kill me now," Fleischer was heard muttering.

"Why does Bush want to kill Iraqi children?" Helen Thomas asked, "What did Iraqi children ever do to him?"

"Here, I have a question for you," Fleischer respond, "Why won't you die, you shriveled, old hag? What sort of unholy agreement do you have with Satan to keep your body living long after your mind has expired?"

"Where's my cat?" Thomas demanded, "Your talk of war has scared away my cat!"

"For the last time, Helen, your cat died thirty years ago!" said an exasperated Fleischer. "Someone please watch her. Any other questions?"

"Do you ever find it intimidating working with such a brilliant strategist as President Bush?" asked President Bush, poorly disguised with a mustache.

"What are you doing here?"

"I'm trying to hide from Rumsfeld," whispered Bush, "I'm afraid that once he finds out we haven't started war yet, he's going to break my legs."

"I did see him walking around earlier with his leg-breaking sledgehammer."

"So, Ari, can we go 'debate' the protestors like you said we would."

"Sure, did you bring your 'argument'?"

Bush held up a metal pipe. "Sure did... but I flooded the bathroom getting it."

Fleischer pulled out a baseball bat from behind the podium. "Let's roll."

"But we still have more questions!" protested one reporter. He was then struck with a bat, surprising no one.

If you liked this satire, you can read more of Frank J.'s work at IMAO.

The Best Quotes From Westerns: Europeans are fond of calling Americans cowboys. I'm not sure if they realize it or not, but that's not exactly an insult to Americans. As a matter of fact, most Americans like Cowboys, cowboy movies, and in particular, they like cowboy movies featuring John Wayne. In fact, I like cowboys so much that I thought it would be good idea to compile, "The Best Quotes From Westerns" for your amusement. Read and enjoy.