The VRWC Commemorative Knives Are In: I received a letter today from VRWC membership chairman George Bush Sr and I decided to post it to RWN. I'm not really supposed to do that, but I'm sure that I can trust all of you not to spread it around -- mainly because the VRWC is monitoring all of your phone calls and email accounts to make sure that you don't talk.)

===

Greetings Fellow VRWC Member

In order commemorate the GOP's wins in last November's elections, we've decided to send each and every member of the VRWC a knife.

You can choose between the, "Donald Rumsfeld Silver Hippy Stabber" model and the "Jonah Goldberg Golden Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey Sticker." As you'd expect, the knives are of the highest quality. Our agents spent years searching for irreplaceable cultural artifacts from ancient cultures so we could melt them down. Then after we acquired the silver and gold we needed, we hired the finest craftsmen from poverty stricken South American countries, promised them pennies a day if they'd hand craft these knives, and of course then cheated them out of their pay.

Now, we have already had some complaints about the fact that we chose to give out commemorative knives instead of Predators or Ronald "Maximus" Reagan M-Class Mech Warriors and I'm sure you've all seen Ms. Coulter's letter suggesting that we each get a commemorative suitcase nuke.

Unfortunately, the last time we starting handing out heavy duty hardware like that, Bill O'Reilly took over half of Belgium before we made him give it back. Luckily, since we are talking about Belgium here, no one noticed. But, we can't take a chance that some of you might get a little overzealous and start trying to take over important countries -- well at least until our cybernetic monkey army is fully trained.

Besides, as an ex-head of the CIA, I've learned to appreciate the subtle merits of a knife. Sure, there's nothing wrong with simply firing a missile into someone's house if you need to have them killed. But, does that really create the same sort of creeping paranoia as finding a trusted aide dead with a note that says "You're next Noriega!" pinned to his back with an exquisite hand carved knife? I think not!

So select your knife and we'll hand it out at the next meeting in Area 51. We finally got that old saucer working after all these years and we're going to take it out for a spin after we dine on some rare endangered Panda.

See you then!

GPB

PS: Thanks to VRWC member James Corbett for designing the knives.

Human Shields Aren't Going To Stop Anything: As most of you know, quite a few Western human shields war tourists have gone to Iraq in an effort to stop the war. According to this article in the New York Times, there are 132 of them running around.

You know, there is a little something about WW2 that these people should remember. Most people today are not be aware of it, but there were 23 American POWS killed when we nuked Hiroshima. We knew they were there, but in order to save more lives, we dropped the bomb anyway.

Now given that, do these people really think we're going to shy away from hitting strategic targets because they're on location? To me, the life of one American soldier is worth the lives 10,000 of these bullet catchers. Moreover, I care much more about the lives of Iraqi civilians who are being forced at gunpoint to be human shields than I do about these people. Heck, I even have more sympathy for the poor conscripts that are being forced to fight against us than I do for a bunch of useful idiots who are deliberately putting themselves in harm's way to protect the regime of a monster like Saddam. They made their own choice and they're going to have to live and quite possibly die with it. No matter what happens, I for one won't be losing any sleep over the fate of these human shields...

Fisking Chuck Hagel: Chuck Hagel, who I put right up there with John McCain, Trent Lott, & Howard Coble in the "annoying elected Republican" category, weighed in on the war at Kansas State University. Hagel starts things out by waffling on his war stand, which incidentally is a big pet peeve of mine...

I'm not sure at this stage if I am in the camp of the hawks or the doves. I prefer to be a wise old owl."

At this late date, waffling on the war doesn't make you a "wise old owl", it makes you a dancing weasel. The reason Hagel and the other people who use variations of this obvious line of bull (I'm willing to go to war to get rid of Saddam, but not right now) is because they want to have their cake and eat it too. If things go well they'll claim they were with Bush all along, if things go poorly then they'll claim they warned us things could go wrong. Come on, grow a backbone and take a stand! Hagel continues...

"We are wrecking coalitions, relationships and alliances so we can get a two-week start on going to war alone?"

That's such an incoherent comment that I hardly know how to reply. We're not going it alone no matter what happens and it's hard to figure out what Hagel is even talking about in the, "two-week start on going to war alone" half of the sentence. Maybe I should give him the benefit of the doubt here and assume that the paper took this sentence out of context.

That being said, Hagel like Bill Bradley, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, etc, is one of these internationalists who believes that having everyone like us is more important than protecting our country. These guys all think that the United States should act like a nerdy teenager with a pool who is thrilled to have people pretending to be his friend as long as he invites them over when it gets hot. His "friends" don't have to actually like him, help him, or do anything for him, they just have to avoid sneering at him while they're swimming in his pool. But, he better not ask his "friends" to do anything for him or they might not be his "friend" anymore. Who needs friends like that and who needs one-way alliances with nations that are only with us as long as we don't need their help?

Now for a moment of levity in the article...

"Jon Wefald, president of Kansas State, suggested that those in the audience will hear more from Hagel in 2007 and 2008, when the Republicans nominate a successor to Bush."

So this guy thinks Chuck Hagel has a shot in 2008? Uh-huh, Hagel and I both have the exact same chance of being the GOP nominee in 2008 -- and I'm not running. The article points out that Hagel supports Bush's policy on Iraq (see what I mean about waffling) and then this anti-war cliche is tossed out...

"Allowing a rush to war in Iraq to create divisions in those institutions and alliances that will help sustain American security and world stability is shortsighted and dangerous."

Take it from someone who would have been THRILLED with a rush to war, this is not a rush to war. Bush has been talking specifically about Iraq for at least 13 months now, he has gotten a Congressional Resolution, and he has gone to the UN. Heck we could even go back to his 9/20/2001 speech when he said, "From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." If you really wanted to, you could go all the way back to the Gulf War since we've supported a policy of regime change since then. How can anybody talk about a "rush to war" at this point with a straight face? Now, let me skip to the concluding comment from Hagel...

"Instead of contributing to stabilization and democratization in the Middle East, just the opposite could occur. A war in Iraq could intensify the radicalization of the region's politics."

Great, another heaping helping of lukewarm weasel soup. What is Hagel even trying to suggest here? That it's like a flipping a coin and that "radicalization" is just as likely as "stabilization and democratization"? Does he think one is more likely than the other? Which one? If he doesn't have any opinion at all, why is he even giving a speech? Oh, it makes my head hurt.

Hagel like a lot of the people out there who are trying to be, "wise old owls" is anti-war. Fine, but he and the rest of the people in the anti-war movement should have the guts to say what they really think. Come on Chuck, say that you think, "We should for all intents and purposes end the war on terrorism here, we shouldn't invade Iraq, we should let Saddam develop nukes, and then we'll just hope things work out OK...somehow." Right or wrong, Hagel and the rest of the people who are waffling should have the guts to tell people the truth about what they believe.

Feeling A Little Hot, Cold, Or Just Right ? Then It's Probably Global Warming: This week the East Coast was hammered with massive snow and ice storms. DC was practically shut down, part of Maryland got four feet of snow and even down here in Charlotte NC, we were hit with a pretty nasty little ice storm. While the storms were hitting, I thought about doing a global warming related post. After all, every time we get particularly hot weather in a region, we have people coming out of the woodwork to claim that global warming is responsible. So if that's the case, why wouldn't the reverse be true?

Well, CNS News posed that question to "Melissa Carey, a climate change policy specialist with the Environmental Defense Fund". She then politely explained that the cold weather was important evidence -- of global warming!

"It's very hard to link one event for sure, but certainly, increased extreme events like this are very, very much in line with the predictions of climate models, definitely," Carey told CNSNews.com.

..."It's not all about warming, it's really about the changes in our climate and our environment that go along with the increases of the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere

Sigh -- so if we have a heat wave it's evidence of global warming. But, if we have a blizzard, it's also evidence of global warming. Do you see why it's so hard to take these environmentalists seriously, especially when we're talking about something as unpredictable as global climate change? Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the free-market environmental think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute agrees...

"Climate is inherently unstable. It is always changing. This supposed 'balance' that man upsets is mythical," Horner explained.

"First, man caused cooling, then warming. The darned climate kept changing, but the insistence that man simply must be ruinous didn't."

Exactly. The truth is that we don't know enough to make an informed decision about what causes global warming and how severe the warming trend will be -- if it's happening at all. Furthermore, we're probably decades away from having that knowledge. I know what the answer to that is, "Decades from now it will be too late! global warming will be wrecking the planet by then!" Sure it will -- and back in the sixties we were being told to get ready for a new ice age. Given that we already have more than enough real and immediate problems to deal with, I see little need to get all upset about a problem as nebulous as global warming.

Ridge Offers New 'Pre-Emptive' Steps to Combat Terrorism by Scott Ott:(2003-02-20) -- At his second news conference in as many days, Homeland Security Czar Tom Ridge today announced another three-step plan for defeating terrorism. The new guidelines follow yesterday's clever slogan "Make a kit. Make a Plan. Be Informed."

The department's new website at Ready.gov will soon contain details on the new "pre-emptive" three-step program:

1) Buy a handgun.
2) Learn to use it.
3) Conceal and carry.

"Terrorism forces us to make a choice," said Mr. Ridge. "Don't be afraid. Be ready. And there's nothing that makes you feel more ready than a flat-black Glock .45 caliber automatic strapped tight to your chest, and a weekly session on the target range."

In contrast to the "make a kit" program which basically deals with the aftermath of an attack, Mr. Ridge said the new plan will stop terrorists cold at the first signs of an attack. He acknowledged that the new plan may hurt sales of duct tape, but it should boost sales of "hardware".

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

Reagan On Freedom, War, And Appeasement: Back in 1964, before Ronald Reagan had held political office, he gave a nationaly televised speech on behalf of Barry Goldwater. Although Goldwater didn't win, "the speech" launched Reagan's politcal career. "The Speech" is full of good stuff on the role of government and the economy, but it's most moving and relevent to the situation we're facing today when Reagan speaks about Communism. In his own words (yes, Reagan wrote all of this himself), Ronald Reagan made the case against Communist in stark, moral terms. Then it was Communism, today it's the war on terrorism, but Reagan's words still seem applicable...

Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us that they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he will forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer--not an easy answer--but simple.

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

What's So Great About America?: There are plenty of people out there who believe that America is the root of all evil and they can reel off a list of our faults as long as your arm. Indeed, plenty of things have happened in this country that we shouldn't be proud of. Off the top of my head, I can come up with slavery, slaughtering the Indians, goading the Mexicans into a war and taking their land, killing tens of thousands of people in the Philippines, slavery, segregation, Jim Crow laws, not allowing women to vote for quite a bit our history, and all sorts of dirty deeds that we engaged in while fighting the Soviets in the Cold War.

So, given that all of this is true, how is it that I can look you straight in the eye and tell you that, "America stands head and shoulders above any other country that exists or has ever existed?" (Cont)

RWN's Short & Sweet Guide To Creating Your Own Blog: Over the last few months I've gotten more than a few emails asking me for advice about how to create a blog. Well, if you want to be the next Glenn Reynolds, Charles Johnson, or Michele Catalano, today is your lucky day. I've been a webmaster for more than 4 years and I'm currently on my 4th web page (1st -- Archfiend's Utopia Resource, 2nd Brass Knuckles Webzine / Brass Knuckles Interviews, 3rd Brass Knuckles Gaming, 4th Right Wing News). So now that you know my qualifications, let's get started shall we?

Wife Beating -- Saudi Style: The Saudi government controlled Arab News has punched up an article condemning wife beating (you can't prove a pun was intended). At first glance, you'd think that was a good thing. Especially in a backwards hellhole like Saudi Arabia where women are regularly treated like chattel. However, Arab News actually says this near the end of their anti-wife beating editorial...

"The root causes of violence against women have been well documented. Most people who commit violence are ignorant of Islamic teaching. Islam does not allow it save in extreme cases and then as a symbolic gesture."

Well it's nice to know that Islam condemns wife beating -- most of the time. But Arab News isn't done...

"Before a husband contemplates any physical action, he should ask himself why he should strike her and if it is the solution to the problem."

I'm sure that works about like this with most of the Arab News readership, "Problem: my dinner isn't ready. Solution: beat my wife until she understands that my dinner better be ready when I get home." Last but not least...

"It is certainly against Islam to beat a good wife. An erring wife should be warned first and advised. If that does not work, then the husband could give her a light beating, the purpose of that being to embarrass rather than inflict pain."

What is a "light beating" supposed to be in a society where religious fanatics run around in public waling on women with sticks for showing too much ankle?

Yes, I know what the multiculturalists would say, "we musn't condemn their culture -- who are we to judge?" Someone explain to me again why all cultures should be considered equal and why multiculuralism is such a great thing because I'm just not seeing it...

In My World: Somewhere There Is A Very Angry Universe With Two Belgiums: "Impudent nations!" French President Jacques Chirac exclaimed at a press conference in his stronghold. He was greatly angered by the east European candidates for EU membership who issued pro-American statements and wished nothing more than to chide them publicly. "What you have done goes against the views of France, the most civilized nation of all! You must shut up if you wish to join the EU of which France declares itself leader!"

"We have an intruder!" screamed his head of security. "He's described as an angry looking old man."

"Must be that fool Rumsfeld!" Chirac responded, "Well, we're prepared for him! Send out the assault force!" Armed troops quickly rushed out of the press conference. "Now you die Rumsfeld!" Chirac exclaimed, "No one keeps me from being extremely rude and arrogant! No one!" Chirac then laughed in an evil and effeminate way. (Cont)

France Drools -- New Europe Rules: Tony Blankley is furious with France because they recently threatened to block several nations in "New Europe" from enterting the EU over their support for the US...

"Adding hypocrisy to thuggery, the French president lectured Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary that they should have "a minimum of understanding for the others" in an organization to which they would belong. This from a country that perversely measures her own glory by her capacity to betray a friend and ally."

Then Blankley lets us know what he really thinks,

"It is worth recalling that while French soldiers were throwing down their rifles in 1940 as the Germans advanced, the flower of Polish manhood charged into the invading Nazi tanks on horseback in the last and most gallant cavalry charge in history. Of course, they were killed to the last man. While the Poles were dying with their boots on, the French were living on their knee-pads (during which, they cheerfully ferreted out and shipped their French Jews off to the German death camps). How dare the French attempt to blackmail the Poles - of all peoples. (And the Czechs and Slovaks who they helped to sell out at Munich."

Blankley concludes with this paragraph,

"If and when the French people throw out their current government and elect one which respects its neighbors and friends, we should certainly attempt to have useful and cordial relations with that government. Until then, we should not only not seek their support on Iraq. We should deny them the honor of joining in our cause. No blackmailers should rally under freedom's banner."

I agree that we should not allow French troops anywhere near Iraq, no matter what Chirac does at this point. We may have to do business with nations like China, Saudi Arabia, & France but, let's not confuse them with nations that are our friends.

***Update***: Jonah Goldberg has written a spot-on editorial about the French, Clinton, and appeasement that I'd strongly recommend you read. Here's my favorite quote from Goldberg's article...

"So when I hear the French insist that we must stay the course with inspections and the status quo, I see a French officer on a sinking ship fomenting mutiny against the American captain. The Frenchman doesn't much care if the ship is sinking, or on fire, or overrun with pirates. He just wants to make sure he's in charge - not some hotshot American with crazy ideas about how we should actually solve the problem at hand."

To Bad It Wasn't A Chemical Gas, Then Maybe They Would Of Wiped Out More Of The Pieces Of Sh*T: Most of you have probably heard about what happened in a Chicago nightclub early on Monday morning. Some pepper spray was released into the air and as 1500 people tried to get out the club, 21 people were either crushed to death or suffocated. This was a tragic event especially since the people who died were simply there to have a good time with their friends.

Well, not everyone considers this to be a tragedy. In fact, in today's edition of ACPOTI (Anyone can post on the internet), I've run across a forum on a page called Resistance Records filled with Nazis who were THRILLED that these people died. If you want to read posts from the type of despicable wastes of plasma who would have happily shoved Jews into the gas chambers during WW2, then keep reading this sick and repulsive episode of ACPOTI. These sickos made my skin crawl...

Look Out, Jimmy Carter Is On Their Side! Snicker, Snicker: The Daily Mirror, an anti-war British paper, seems to be quite pleased with the fact that Jimmy Carter signed up for the "Daily Mirror's Not in My Name campaign"...

"It remains to be seen just how effective his influence can be on the warmongers. But if his CV is anything to go by he could hold the key to the crisis.

As per usual, Carter's foreign policy related statements are laughable -- but instructive. For example, here's a perfect example of the sort of circular logic that the anti-war movement uses...

Carter admits that Hussein probably has WMD...

"(Saddam) obviously has the capability and desire to build prohibited weapons and probably has some hidden in his country."

Carter admits that Saddam must be disarmed...

"Obviously Saddam Hussein will have to comply with the revelation and destruction of all weapons of mass destruction."

And yet...

"There has been a virtual declaration of war but a case for pre-emptive action against Iraq has not been made."

So Jimmy Carter says Saddam must disarm, but he's steadfastly against the only realistic chance we have of disarming him -- which is using military force. Why can't Carter and the rest of the anti-war movement be honest enough to admit that they'd rather see Saddam keep his WMD and develop nukes than do anything about it? I mean, do these people think the "disarmament fairies" are going to come down and sprinkle "pixie dust" on all the WMD and render them useless or something? Saddam sure isn't going to get rid of WMD out of the goodness of his tiny, black heart.

Then there was quote from a Carter, "friend" in the article...

"The former President is far too discreet to go mouthing off. But people round here do remember him saying, 'Our State Department never gets upset about anything unless white skin or oil is involved'. His words have rung true again."

Only white skin or oil huh? I'm sure South Korea, Taiwan, and Bosnia -- among other nations -- would be surprised to hear about that.

All of this gibberish from Carter and his 'friend' may sound silly to you, but the Daily Mirror is taking it very seriously. So much that so that they were inspired to write this priceless line in an editorial about the worst American President of the last century,

"JIMMY Carter was not a flashy or showy President, but history judges him as one of America's greatest."

Oh boy, are these guys overestimating who they've got on their side. Let me give the people at the Daily Mirror a little advice that we here in America learned the hard way -- Jimmy Carter screws up everything he touches. There is a "vortex of failure" that follows him around like a thundercloud. In fact, his track record is so bad that I'm surprised that the houses he builds for Habitat for Humanity don't just fall over the moment he hammers in his first nail. In the last twenty-eight years, the only things he has gotten involved with that haven't imploded are the Israel-Egypt peace treaty, the aforementioned houses, and the Nobel Peace Prize which has now been damaged by association with him. Are you getting what I'm saying? Having Carter with you is like trusting the French to protect your country, getting Cobra Commander to back you against GI Joe, or having the storm troopers defend you against the Rebels. In short, having Carter take your side (on foreign policy issues at least) not only means that you're in all likelihood wrong, it probably means that you're going to lose as well.

The Top Ten Ways North Korea Could Look Even Crazier By Frank J.:While we wait (and wait and wait) for inevitable war with Iraq, North Korea is still trying to crazy their way to our attention. Now they are claiming they can beat us in a nuclear war.

"In the North Korea-U.S. nuclear standoff, which the world is watching with sweating hands, we were always ultra-hardline and that ultra-hardline response is the response of the mighty army-first policy. The victory in the nuclear conflict is ours and the red flag of the army-first policy will flutter ever more vigorously."

So I gather that this magical "army-first policy" is supposed to keep them from being vaporized. Don't they understand that they might actually be more threatening if they said something that wasn't quite as ludicrous?

"We will show those evil imperialist Americans by killing a few hundred of their soldiers before they completely obliterate us!"

Now there is a threat I could buy. We don't want to loose a few hundred soldiers, so that might influence us to move cautiously. Instead of using threats like that, though, North Korea keeps coming off like a little ant that has walked up to a man and started screaming, "I will kill you and burn down your house and you are powerless against me!"

Still, maybe there is something to this "Hey, look at me! I'm crazy!" strategy that I just don't realize. The only problem is that North Korea is running out of ways to looks even crazier. So, to help out, here are some suggestions.

TOP TEN WAY NORTH KOREA COULD LOOK EVEN CRAZIER

10. Have Kim Jong Il upgrade his poofy hair to full afro.

9. Have announcements of threats to America followed with a song and dance number.

8. Claim we got it all wrong and that they're actually South Korea.

7. Put squirrels on trial for being America spies.

6. Tie a giant rubber band between two trees and claim they are now invulnerable to American missiles.

5. To determine their next leader, hold a contest to find who is most goofy looking; appoint Jimmy Carter as leader.

4. Announce threats to America in perfect Klingon.

3. In speech where Kim Jong Il gets angry at America, finish the speech by smearing his face with green paint and pretending he turned into the Hulk.

2. In show of strength, nuke selves.

And the number one way for North Korea to appear even crazier...

1. Ally with France and Germany.

If you liked this humor by Frank J., you can read more of his work at IMAO.

The Non-Existent Anti-Immigrant Agenda: I felt a need to respond to Cathy Young latest snide editorial in Reason in which she makes the claim that Conservatives have an "anti-immigrant agenda".

To begin with, there is no, "anti-immigrant agenda." Conservatives simply think there should be some standards applied to immigration whereas far too many liberals and Libertarians are willing to ignore the law and don't want to even apply the most basic common sense to how we handle immigration. Let me go into a little more detail about what I mean....

An American citizen is an American citizen whether their ancestors came over on the Mayflower or whether they moved here and just became citizens five minutes ago. That's not in dispute.

Where we first start to see a difference between Young's position and the position of many Conservatives is on legal visitors to our country. Visiting the United States is not a right, it's a privilege. As far as I'm concerned, visitors who aren't willing to follow the rules we set down aren't welcome here. That means they need to tell the truth about why they're here, meet all requirements for entry into our country & keep their paperwork up to date. If these simple rules had been followed by the INS, there wouldn't have been a 9/11 since, "15 of the 19 September 11 terrorists should have been denied visas under the law." Furthermore, I see no problem with giving extra scrutiny to people, "from countries with special links to terrorism " which even Young herself seems to largely support.

Where we Conservatives really split from the position Kathy Young advocates is on illegal immigration. Illegal aliens are a major problem in this country for a variety of reasons. They commit crimes (John Malvo being one prominent example that Young pooh-poohs), they fill up our prisons, they add a burden to our health care system and schools, they flout the law to get here, and they don't pay their fair share of taxes. Encouraging more illegal aliens to come here via amnesty programs and trying to make illegal aliens "more at home here" is counterproductive, it undermines the rule of law, and it hurts our country.

Let me sum things up by laying out our choices on immigration policy...

1) Open Borders, Anyone Can Come Into America: This would be insane. The United States would be flooded with tens of millions of people pouring into our country along with drugs, unlimited numbers of terrorists, etc, etc. This is totally impractical.

2) Closed Borders, No More Immigrants Allowed: This would also be insane. It would cause severe economic damage & our overall population would start to decline. This is also totally impractical.

Now since neither of those options is workable, we should...

3) Allow some immigrants into the US: This means we have to set a certain limit on the number of immigrants who can come into the United States and/or become citizens.

If that is our policy, we have two choices...

1) The Cathy Young Policy: Create immigration laws based around what we determine is best for America and then allow people to break them with minimal or no consequences.

2) The Conservative Policy: Create immigration laws based around what we determine is best for America and then strictly enforce them.

If the Cathy Youngs of the world don't like our immigration policy, then they should try to convince our government to change them. But, to get into a huff and complain about the "anti-immigrant agenda" Conservatives have because we favor enforcing the law is juvenile, illogical, and unfortunately far too common of a position. It's about time that more people made that clear and stood up for actually enforcing our immigration laws.

RWN In The Classroom: High school students in the Poway Unified School District have apparently been learning more about Machiavelli by reading an RWN editorial called, Is America Better Off Being Feared Or Loved? RWN welcomes all of you young skulls full of mush -- well if your left-wing teachers actually gave the link to you. But if your teacher came through, here's a little bonus that may help you out with your "reflective essay" that's due on the 20th -- Machiavelli quotes.

The New York Times Is Outraged By Saddam's "Male Only" Golf Course By Marni Malarkey: The New York Times has stunned readers and media watchers by announcing on today's editorial page their "full, 200% support" for a US invasion of Iraq, "whether it is unilateral or not." The change of heart came when the Times' editorial board discovered that Saddam Hussein had opened a male-only country club outside Baghdad called "Pine Acres and Weapons Grade Plutonium Hills." The club, where Baghdad's "elite meet to eat," according to Tariq Aziz, features a golf course, tennis courts, swishy restaurants and a day spa, and costs the Iraqi equivalent of $175,000 a year to join. Pine Acres and Weapons Grade Plutonium Hills is also the host of the yearly "Sunni Open" golf tournament as well as the "Hanging Gardens of Babylon" annual Tennis Invitational.

The Times' editorial called the country club "sexist" and said that "Americans cannot stand by and allow such treatment of women to go unpunished and unchecked. It is time to stand up to Saddam. His transgressions up until now have been fairly bad, but the creation of this bastion of chauvinism proves that he is barbaric and irredeemable." Also newly on the pro-war bandwagon are Janeane Garofalo, Susan Sarandon, Jessica Lange and Barbra Streisand. Phil Donahue and Alan Alda, upon learning of the restricted membership at Pine Acres and Weapons Grade Plutonium Hills, issued a joint statement saying that "as incredibly sensitive men who aren't afraid of their feelings and who aren't afraid of crying we have to show solidarity with oppressed women everywhere. So -- 'bombs away!'"

If you liked this satire by Marni Malarkey's, you can read more of her material at Broken Newz.

I Seen 3 Aliens Who Was Like Humans Who Started This Thing With Me: One of RWN's readers (I accidentally deleted his email, he can write me if he wants credit) clued me in to the existence of the Mind Control Discussion Forum. As the name suggests, this is a forum for people who believe their mind is being controlled by -- someone or another -- it depends on the person.

Normally, I find the things I cover in ACPOTI (Anyone can post on the internet) to be so over the top or off the wall that they're actually amusing. However, these people are more than a little unhinged. As a matter of fact, the majority of the people posting in this forum appear to have severe mental problems and could desperately use the services of a psychiatrist or psychologist -- and that's coming from a psych major. So get ready for a disturbing version of, 'anyone can post on the internet'...

Odds & Ends: Just a few odds and ends that were significant enough to comment on, but perhaps not worth an entire post on their own...

-- It's been said that the purpose of NATO is to Keep America in (from becoming isolationist), The Soviets out (of Europe), and Germany down (from starting another war). Well, none of those things are currently a concern. Moreover, since most of our NATO allies have let their militaries atrophy and can't even easily agree on the basics (like protecting Turkey), NATO in its current form is essentially obsolete. Things are going to have to change if NATO is going to survive.

-- Jane Galt seems to be a bit upset because of some vicious criticism she received. Hey kiddo, don't sweat it. If you have an opinion about anything, eventually you're going to get attacked for it. I even once had someone say he'd like to slit my throat and kill my family because he was angry about the changes I suggested in an online game =D. That's just the price you pay for having the guts to slug it out in the arena of ideas. Furthermore, you have to remember that there is a significant segment of the left that thinks words like Fascist, Nazi, racist, sexist, bigot, warmonger, etc., are just synonyms for Republican &/or Conservative. Who cares what people like that think about anything? I certainly don't. Personally, if I think the hate mail is entertaining enough, I'll post about it, but otherwise I don't even bother to waste time replying to them. As far as I'm concerned, the more hate mail I get, the better. It just means my message is getting out to a bigger audience.

-- Tony Blair has taken a beating at the polls for supporting the US in the war against terrorism. But doing the right thing isn't always rewarded at the polls. The greatest leader Britain has ever known, Winston Churchill, could tell Blair all about that since Churchill was voted out of office by an unappreciative British public in 1945...

-- Just a thought for all you Conservatives out there -- just because left-wingers do something, doesn't always mean we need to try to match it. A prime example of that is anti-war poetry. Poetry is for high school students, not people who are trying to get points across to other adults. So make fun of them, goof on them, laugh at their ineptitude, after all, they deserve it. But, don't try to match them by writing your own serious pro-war poetry. I'm telling you this because friends don't let friends write poetry and post it on the web...

-- Here's an idea I've been toying with -- the blogosphere swimsuit calender. It could feature Moxie, Dawn Olsen, Virginia Postrel, Rachel Lucas, Michele Catalano of A Small Victory, the Samizdata Girls, Sasha Castel, Kimberly Swygert of Number 2 Pencil & I'm sure there are some girls who deserve to make the list. Now, if I can just get them all together in bathing suits, we could shoot this thing and sell a copies to every guy in the blogosphere. Ah, it sounds good, but the last time I tried something sort of like this I couldn't pull it off =D

Leaked Memo Reveals Liberal Radio Network Plan By Scott Ott: (2003-02-17) -- Nationwide, no liberal talk-radio show has ever succeeded, while numerous conservative hosts have built large audiences. Now, a group of wealthy Democrat donors has put $10 million behind a plan to start a liberal radio network built on a radical concept.

According to a leaked internal memo from Chicago venture capitalists Sheldon and Anita Drobny, their plan to break the liberal radio curse is as follows:

1. Get marginally-famous people to host -- comedians, "B-list" actors, defeated liberal politicians.

2. Get some "ideas" of our own. (Finance opinion polls to develop these.)

3. Find ways of describing our ideas that are not repugnant to freedom-loving people.

4. Try to sound more American. Play Star-Spangled Banner at start of show, or something.

5. If the above plan fails, make fun of how George Bush looks and talks.

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

Useful Idiots On Parade: There were more "peace" (might as well have been Pro-Saddam) rallies across this world this week-end. Here's a banner from one of them that I cribbed from A Small Victory...

Lovely sentiment eh? I'm tempted to simply toss up a few provocative pics and quotes and make fun of the role the Commies at ANSWER played in all of this, but there's a deeper point that needs to be made.

Tony Blair touched on it when he said...

There will be no march for the victims of Saddam, no protests about the thousands of children that die needlessly every year under his rule, no righteous anger over the torture chambers which if he is left in power, will be left in being."

You know, it may be a lot of fun to get dressed up like a hippy and hang out with your friends all afternoon and shout out a bunch of bumper sticker slogans while you pretend like you're accomplishing something, but what are the consequences? Like I've said before, I don't ever hear these people taking responsibility for the results of the position they're advocating.

I'd love to go to one of these rallies and not just so that I could lure these peaceniks into dark alleys where I could mug them for their wallets and Birkenstocks -- I'd like to go and hear and speaker say something like,

"That's right, we're against Bush's filthy war! We're willing to let Saddam have nukes! It's not our place to stop Saddam from getting nuclear weapons and if he starts a nuclear war with Israel, that's not our problem. Sure, the Iraqis may not have any freedom, but why should we do anything about that? That's has nothing to do with us! We're willing to risk a terrorist bringing a nuke, right here into NYC. That's better than war any day!"

What would the response to that be? Applause? Boos? I'm guessing boos -- because these people are just not willing to deal with the real world consequences of their actions. Of course, there's nothing new about that.

Just think back to the Vietnam war protestors. How many of them were complaining about the Khmer Rouge killing everything that moved in Cambodia? Pol Pot and company slaughtered over a million people, but the US wasn't involved, so that was fine with them. How many of the protestors from back then do you think look at Vietnam today and say, "Wow, today there are 81 million people condemned to life in that Communist hellhole, and I helped make it possible?" Because indeed, the Vietnam era peace protestors did help make that a reality.

So if you're one of the people who went to the little "pro-Saddam" rallies this week-end, I hope remember, Saddam and the terrorists are watching and they appreciate everything you're doing for them. You're helping to raise their morale and giving them hope that America doesn't have the will to see the war on terrorism through. Iraq even said so explicitly...

"Iraq on Sunday gloated over the global outpouring of opposition to the U.S. threat of attack, saying anti-war demonstrations in dozens of countries signaled an Iraqi victory and "the defeat and isolation of America."

I'm sure Saddam and whoever is heading Al-Qaeda these days would thank you personally if they could. Now their victims? I don't know if most of them would have such kind words for you...

***Update***: Hey look, Saddam has now thanked the protestors for all their help...

"The pioneering and humane positions expressed through the demonstrations that recently took place should be viewed with esteem and kindness. We hope that everybody works for the establishment of peace, based on justice, equity and kindness among peoples."

Congrats peace protestors, Saddam appreciates all your efforts to keep him from being removed from power. In these trying times it must be comforting for Saddam to know that all of those people are in effect on his side.

Exclusive Interview: Chirac Advises Bush How to Avoid War: Shortly after his exclusive interview with Time Magazine, French President Jacques Chirac sat down in the Elysee Palace for an even more exclusive session with an unnamed ScrappleFace editor.

Here are key excerpts of that interview:

Why is France shirking its military responsibilities to its oldest ally? Ally? Which ally?

To the United States...your ally for more than 230 years....located several thousand miles to the west of Paris. Ah, oui...We don't like to think of it as shirking our responsibilities to the U.S., but rather as keeping our responsibilities to our ally, the Republic of Iraq. France is obviously not anti-American, we are simply pro-Iraqi. Of course, we don't like Saddam Hussein, and we wish he would go away. But we think this goal can be reached without starting a war. We currently have a program to deal with that -- it's called "souhait sur une étoile." (Cont)

The Best Quotes From Margaret Thatcher's 'Statecraft': There have only been two European leaders in the last century that I actually respect and admire. One was Winston Churchill and the other is Margaret Thatcher. That being said, I was looking forward to reading "Statecraft" and finding out a bit more about how the "Iron Lady" viewed the world.

Well, after reading the book, I'd say it's absolutely indispensable for people who are interested in foreign affairs. That's because Thatcher has a unique perspective on the nations she talks about. Not only has studied them and been able to get the views of experts in the field, but she has visited almost everywhere she discusses and has had the opportunity to actually talk with leaders & dignitaries during her visits. Furthermore, since Thatcher has actually led a great power like Britain, she has a perspective that most historians and students of these nations will never have.

Then there is Thatcher's rock ribbed Conservatism, an assortment of interesting facts and charts, her advocacy of free market principles, and her determination to set the record straight on the Cold War. All those things put together made this a fascinating book. In fact, this book was so good that I was easily able to select more than fifty quotes from it that I thought were worth sharing. Read and enjoy...