Anti-Americanism Is Nothing New: I was talking to an Israeli friend of mine on ICQ today and he asked me what I thought about all the anti-Americanism in the world today. What I told him and what I'm going to tell you, is that there's nothing new about anti-Americanism -- it's been around since our nation was founded. The slurs may change, but the hostility stays the same.

Just look at the last century. After the Zimmerman Telegram prompted the US to jump into WW1 and break the bloody stalemate in Europe, Woodrow Wilson's advice was unceremoniously blown off by our "allies" and our nation was called "Uncle Shylock" for insisting that our loans be repaid. That was one of the reasons (although not the only one) that Americans were so hesitant to get involved in WW2.

Again in WW2, the US played a crucial role along with the Brits and Russians in winning the war. After the war was over, we didn't demand that we be paid back the tens of billions we were owed and we even sponsored the Marshall Plan to help rebuild Europe. Moreover, we were protecting the Europeans from the Soviet Union. Had any one nation in history done so much in such a short period for other nations?

But, when the Korean War rolled around, who was Europe suspicious of -- their American allies or the Soviets, Chinese and N. Koreans? You got it -- us. We got the same raw deal in the Vietnam War.

Then Reagan got into office and started trying to actually defeat the Soviets and guess what? He was portrayed as a dangerous, warmongering, cowboy just like George Bush is today. As Reagan & America prosecuted and won the Cold War, we got support from Britain and to a lesser extent Germany. As far as the rest of Europe goes, we only received minimal assistance from them and Reagan was even vigorously protested in Europe for doing some of the very things that helped us win the Cold War.

Fast forward to the nineties and to be truthful, things weren't much better. Sure we didn't hear as much blatant anti-Americanism as during the Reagan ears, but Europe still bent over backwards to try to shackle us. Several treaties that came down the pike in the UN, (Kyoto & the International Criminal Court are two prominent ones) were primarily designed to tie down the US and one of the reasons the Europeans liked Bill Clinton was because they thought he might be dumb enough to sign on the dotted line.

Now let's move on to the Bush Presidency -- Afghanistan who we helped save from the Soviets in the 80s allowed their terrorist allies to attack us on 9/11, South Korea who we defend from their belligerent Northern neighbors complains about our troops, Turkey who we have constantly plugged for EU membership wouldn't even take 30 billion dollars in loans and cash to help us out, France who we liberated in WW2 and protected from the Soviets for 45 years has been stabbing us in the back at every opportunity, etc, etc.

The truth is that if we're doing anything because we expect gratitude from another country, we're going to be sadly disappointed down the road. Maybe some of their citizens may appreciate what we've done, but even that is probably going to be very short-lived. Now why is that? Because as a general rule, I find that many people and all nations tend to decide what's in their best interests first and then come up with all the "moral" reasons why they're taking that position afterwards.

So, I don't worry about anti-Americanism that much. It has always been around and always will be. However, as long as our military and economy stay strong, it'll be in the interest of the other nations in the world to be friendly with us. And if it's in their interest, they'll come up with "moral" reasons why they should agree with/like us on their own -- especially once things start to cool down in the war on terror (although that will be years away). You may think that is a Machiavellian view of the world, but you'll find that it's a very realistic one in a world where politicking between nations is simply a clever way to mask that the law of the jungle is still in effect.

Nervous Hussein Posts Resume On Major Internet Sites By G. Alan Groop: San Jose, California - Companies worldwide, searching for job candidates, may have been surprised to see the newly-posted resume of Saddam Hussein appear on several of the major internet job search sites. This action by Hussein may be an indicator that he has begun accepting the speculation swirling about his limited future as the Iraqi dictator.

Highlights of the resume, which details current and past work history, include:

Professional Objective: Obtain a position, commensurate with my experience and background, which will allow me total, unfettered control of a large country or company.

"Throughout my tenure, I have always considered myself a people-oriented dictator. My reputation as a popular, benevolent leader, is clearly reflected in the fact that I received 100% of the vote in my most recent election. Some countries leaders cannot even claim to have won the popular vote in their election.

"On paper, he has a number of very good skills which may be attractive to specific companies," states professional recruiter Tom Woltron of "The Woltron Group". "Major companies, and some developing countries, are looking for aggressive, proven leadership. He clearly fits this mold, but there are significant potential problems, in how Hussein implements business decisions, that may deter companies from hiring him", Woltron suggests. "Take for example the typical company's approach to terminating problem employees versus Hussein's solution. Most companies offer 60 days written notice, a severance package, and COBRA insurance coverage. Hussein may choose to handle this situation, as he has in the past, with a good, strong batch of mustard gas. While this is a more cost-effective, near-term solution, this heavy-handed approach does tend to make shareholders uneasy". Woltron added, "His approach towards takeovers may also not mesh well with today's corporate culture, except in the Telecom sector." Woltron also raised questions about personal references listed on the resume. "Sure, bin Laden is a household name, but he is hiding because he is afraid of dying, so reaching him for his recommendations would be difficult, at best."

If you liked this satire by G. Alan Groop you can see more of his work at Broken Newz.

Juicy Rumor Of The Day: Here's the explosive 12th paragraph of a Stephen Pollard column in the Telegraph today...

"Well-connected advisers tell me that if, as now seems likely, the UN refuses to back action against terror, Mr Bush will announce a "temporary" suspension of America's membership, to be accompanied by an offer: if the UN gets its act together and carries out long-overdue reforms, America (and its money) will return. But if there is no reform, the temporary withdrawal will, de facto, become permanent."

My oh my, I expect that will get some people's attention when it gets out. It's a shame that it's probably not true. W. is already talking about getting the UN involved in the North Korea situation and I think W. would take too much of a political blow to seriously consider pulling out of the UN -- at least in his first term.

However, floating something like this can be valuable because other nations have to take it seriously. Not only because there are a lot of rock ribbed Conservatives in the Bush administration who probably would like to pull out of the UN, but because once George Bush makes a decision it's very difficult to change his mind. So if Bush decided that we were going to leave the UN -- then you can bet your bottom dollar it's going to happen. That has to make Kofi Annan think twice, because without the influence, money, and military might of the United States, the UN will go from being a pathetic & toothless debating society...well to an even more pathetic & toothless debating society. Even so, it's a good idea to remind the ninnies at the UN that they may have to pay a big price for taking us for granted.

Misc: A few things...

-- I'm working on article designed to answer people's questions and concerns about the war. It's going to be fairly comprehensive. If you have any questions about the war on terrorism or questions that you hear asked a lot, post them in the comments section and I may get to them in the article.

-- I'm also going to be working on link trades again this week-end. If you have a web page and you'd like to trade links with RWN, just link us and send me an email. As long as your page is regularly updated and I like it, I'll add you in. The amount of traffic you get doesn't matter to me.

-- You can now purchase an 88x31 button in the "support section" of RWN for the entire month of April. If you're interested, send $15 to my Paypal account (which is also located in the support section) and email me your 3kb or smaller button. You might want to do it early because RWN completely sold (actually oversold) all of our space for March.

-- Speaking of our advertisers, thanks to Those Shirts, Conservative Commentary, Between The Coasts, Belly Flop, Timeshel Arts, & Number 2 Pencil for advertising on RWN. You might want to give them look, especially if you haven't seen their pages before, to show them that they were smart to buy an ad on RWN.

-- Last but not least, I've had several people suggest that I start selling RWN T-shirts. I'm considering the idea, but I'm not sure there would be enough demand. If you'd be interested in getting an RWN T-shirt, have an idea for a design, or have any suggestions about where I should go to get them made if I were to decide to do them, let me know in the comments section.

***Update***: I'd love to see more questions about the war for the article I'm going to be putting up Monday. They can be questions you have, questions you've heard asked, pro-war, anti-war, just questions people on the street might be asking. I'm going to try to hit around 50 of these questions and I've decided to branch it out to general questions about the war on terrorism. I really want to try to run the full gamut of questions that are out there so if you have anything you'd like to see answered, feel free to post it in the comments section.

Should You Become A Democrat?: As a service to RWN's readers, I have prepared the following 25 questions to help people determine if they should join the Democratic party. Feel free to share it with friends and family members and if they find themselves answering "yes" to most of the questions below, then the Democrats are the party for them. (Cont)

Impeachment & A Great Campaign Commercial: Apparently, some of the Democrats in Congress have started to become unduly influenced by the loopy left. According to National Review, there are actually some Democrats who are going to try to impeach Bush if we go to war...

"(S)ome liberal Democrats in Congress are preparing to introduce articles of impeachment against Bush and perhaps members of his Cabinet, according to lawmakers and congressional aides.

The resolution also charges Bush with "threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently proclaiming an intention to change its government by force while preparing to assault Iraq in a war of aggression." A congressional aide provided the resolution's text on the condition of anonymity."

I'm sure a lot of you are understandably outraged by that, but I'm not. I consider it an incredible political opportunity in the making. I can already see the 2004 campaign commercials...

Democrats -- Whose Side Are They On?

(Pic of President Bush with American flags behind him comes up -- voice speaks) President Bush spent the last four years doing everything in his power to defend the American people from the terrorists & rogue states who are menacing our country.

But what about the Democrats?

(Pic of Patty Murray comes up) Democratic Senator Patty Murray told Americans that our country has a lot to learn from the compassion of Osama Bin Laden...

(Voice Reads) "(Bin Laden has) been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. We haven't done that."

(Pic of Marcy Kaptur comes up -- voice reads) Democratic Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur compared Osama Bin Laden to our Founding Fathers...

(voice reads) "One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped to cast off the British crown."

(Pictures of Bonoir & McDermott in Baghdad come up -- voice reads) Democratic Congressmen David Bonoir & Jim McDermott went to Iraq & Jim McDermott stood in enemy territory and told the world that we couldn't trust the President -- (McDermott's voice says) "I think the president would mislead the American people."

(Picture of whichever Democrat introduces the impeachment resolution comes up on screen) Then as our nation was at war and our troops were fighting in the field, the Democrats tried to impeach President Bush for protecting our country.

(Reelect President Bush in 2004 sign comes up -- voice speaks) We know President Bush will do whatever it takes to defend our country. But, can we trust the Democrats with our national security when some of them don't even seem to know which side they're on?

Kill The Whales!: I'm not quite sure if this is a lefty trying to be sarcastic or someone on the right trying to be funny, but this email I just received from UncleKevin123456 of the "Plankton Solidarity Front" made me laugh either way.

"Dear Mr John Hawkins,

Yours Sincerely,
Plankton Solidarity Front.

The Endangering Species Act By Frank J.: Legislators are introducing a bill to help fight exotic species like the evil Chinese superfish, the snakehead. This is a good thing. We have plenty of laws protecting different animal species, but I've always said we don't have enough laws calling for their deaths. To me, this was the biggest oversight of the Endangered Species Act. In it, we try to save animals that are going extinct because of the actions of man, but what about the animals who were supposed to become extinct? Don't we, to preserve the natural order of things, have to find them and eradicate them?

I say we add a committee to the EPA whose job it is to decide which animals should become extinct, and then send out a special squad to find and eliminate those animals. I will be on that squad. First off, I say we get rid of the mosquito. They cause itchy bumps and there is no need for that. Frankly, I could do without most insects. If bees want to stick around, they really should think hard about getting rid of those stingers.

As for birds, obviously the pigeon has to go. Also, I've never liked the Canadian geese; they're dirty filthy things and they're from Canada. I also don't get the point of a bird that can't fly, but I'll spare the penguins since they stay out of our way in Antarctica.

The oceans are filled with tons of weird, icky things with sharp teeth or poison; I say we be a lot more discriminating about what we let live the ocean. The really deep-sea creatures are fine - we never run into them - but anything near the surface has to be nicer or taste good fried.

Also, I find the idea of mammals that live like fish perverse. I especially don't like the dolphins. They think they're so great since everyone says how smart they are, but they better learn some humility or its curtains for them.

As for land mammals, the raccoons keep getting in my trash - they die now. I never trusted cats, so lets at least get rid of all the large, wild ones. Also, there is something about squirrels I just find unsettling; since they don't seem to play an integral part of the ecosystem, let's get rid of them just to be on the safe side. Oh, and for the deer, it's fun shooting you, but you better start learning to look both ways before crossing the street. Marsupials are weird, but so is much of Australia, but any marsupials that wander off the reservation should be dealt with; yeah, I'm talking about you, opossum.

Anyway, could someone who is good at writing legislation type up the bill and send it to congress? I'll start oiling up the shotguns in preparation.

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

Charlie Daniels' Open Letter To The Hollywood Bunch: I just ran across this "Open Letter" from country singer Charlie Daniels and it was so fantastic that I had to put it up. I was going to just do a few quotes from it, but it's so good that I couldn't bear to cut anything out...

Open Letter To The Hollywood Bunch

"Ok let's just say for a moment you bunch of pampered, overpaid, unrealistic children had your way and the U.S.A. didn't go into Iraq.

Let's say that you really get your way and we destroy all our nuclear weapons and stick daisies in our gun barrels and sit around with some white wine and cheese and pat ourselves on the back, so proud of what we've done for world peace.

Let's say that we cut the military budget to just enough to keep the National Guard on hand to help out with floods and fires.

Let's say that we close down our military bases all over the world and bring the troops home, increase our foreign aid and drop all the trade sanctions against everybody.

I suppose that in your fantasy world this would create a utopian world where everybody would live in peace. After all, the great monster, the United States of America, the cause of all the world's trouble would have disbanded it's horrible military and certainly all the other countries of the world would follow suit.

After all, they only arm themselves to defend their countries from the mean old U.S.A.

Why you bunch of pitiful, hypocritical, idiotic, spoiled mugwumps. Get your head out of the sand and smell the Trade Towers burning. Do you think that a trip to Iraq by Sean Penn did anything but encourage a wanton murderer to think that the people of the U.S.A. didn't have the nerve or the guts to fight him?

Barbra Streisand's fanatical and hateful rankings about George Bush makes about as much sense as Michael Jackson hanging a baby over a railing.

You people need to get out of Hollywood once in a while and get out into the real world. You'd be surprised at the hostility you would find out here.

Stop in at a truck stop and tell an overworked, long distance truck driver that you don't think Saddam Hussein is doing anything wrong.

Tell a farmer with a couple of sons in the military that you think the United States has no right to defend itself.

Go down to Baxley, Georgia and hold an anti-war rally and see what the folks down there think about you.

You people are some of the most disgusting examples of a waste of protoplasm I've ever had the displeasure to hear about.

Sean Penn, you're a traitor to the United States of America. You gave aid and comfort to the enemy. How many American lives will your little, "fact finding trip" to Iraq cost? You encouraged Saddam to think that we didn't have the stomach for war.

You people protect one of the most evil men on the face of this earth and won't lift a finger to save the life of an unborn baby. Freedom of choice you say?

Well I'm going to exercise some freedom of choice of my own. If I see any of your names on a marquee, I'm going to boycott the movie. I will completely stop going to movies if I have to. In most cases it certainly wouldn't be much of a loss.

You scoff at our military who's boots you're not even worthy to shine. They go to battle and risk their lives so ingrates like you can live in luxury.

The day of reckoning is coming when you will be faced with the undeniable truth that the war against Saddam Hussein is the war on terrorism.

America is in imminent danger. You're either for her or against her. There is no middle ground.

I think we all know where you stand.

What do you think?

God Bless America

Charlie Daniels

Make sure to visit Charlie Daniels' website and check out his Open Letter To The Media as well...

How Does The Democratic Party Keep Producing People Like This?: You know, I just do not understand how a United States Congresswoman can be so incredibly ignorant that she would compare Osama Bin Laden to the Founding Fathers. It just boggles the mind that U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D., Toledo) said something like this...

"When America "cast off monarchical Britain" in 1776, it involved the help of many religious people who had fled repression in other countries, the 11-term Toledo congressman said. Among the nontraditional American revolutionaries were the Green Mountain Boys, a patriot militia organized in 1770 in Bennington, Vt., to confront British forces, she said.

"One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped to cast off the British crown," Miss Kaptur said."

Yes, you read that correctly. She is saying that Osama Bin Laden is "very similar" to people who fought to free our country from the British -- people like George Washington, John Adams, James Madison, Ben Franklin, John Hancock, Patrick Henry, John Paul Jones & Thomas Jefferson.

That is a repulsive and sickening statement for anyone to make and the fact that a congresswoman would say it is reprehensible. If you want to know why so many people don't believe the Democrats can be trusted to defend our country, you only have to look at statements just like this one and the anemic reactions to them by other Democrats to see exactly why.

T-Shirts, Forums, & Freedom: While perusing TotalFark (Registration and $5 a month required), I ran across quite a few submissions related to an incident that occurred on Monday in an Albany mall. Here are just some of the headlines from TotalFark...

- "Man arrested for wearing a dry T-shirt in a mall, have we gone insane?"
- "New Yorker arrested for wearing t-shirt that says "Peace on Earth"
- "Lawyer Arrested For Wearing a 'Peace' T-Shirt"
- "Man arrested for message on t-shirt. Peace message. Framers spinning in their graves."

Here's the scoop on what actually happened from MSNBC...

"DOWNS AND HIS SON, 31-year-old Roger Downs, each had a pro-peace shirt made Monday night at a store in the mall. One shirt simply said "Let Inspections Work" on one side and "No War With Iraq" on the other. The other shirt said "Give Peace A Chance" on the front and "Peace On Earth" on the back.

A Macy's employee saw the men in the food court and alerted security. Downs and his son were asked to remove their shirts. Roger Downs complied, but when Stephen Downs wouldn't, he was told to leave the mall. When he refused, he was arrested for trespassing."

First off, despite the fact that I'm about as hawkish as it gets on the war, I think it was silly to ask those men to remove their shirts or leave the mall. Not only do I disagree with the decision, but if I had a store at the mall, I'd complain to the mall management and demand that they not do anything like that again.

That being said, all of the headlines on Totalfark are totally incorrect. Those men were not kicked out of the mall for their anti-war T-shirts, they were kicked out of the mall for trespassing. Furthermore, that mall had every right to tell them to get lost for wearing those T-shirts. You know why? Because the mall is a private business and if they choose to do so they can impose a dress code and/or limit the types of free speech expressed at their place of business. I'd say the same thing if the mall banned people for wearing Right Wing News T-shirts -- if they existed. That mall has a right to do that just as anyone offended by that mall's behavior has every right to choose to spend their money somewhere else.

The same thing applies to the forums & comment sections on websites. On RWN, I delete and ban users (well, as best you can on the net) for using racial slurs, libel, making threats, excessive flaming, trolling, etc. I don't bother to write them emails, I don't do elaborate explanations on the forums, I don't make any effort to explain my decision, it's just bye-bye. Sometimes these people write to email about being banned and generally I don't even bother to reply. On the rare occasions that I do respond, I basically tell them that if they will conform to the rules that I have chosen to set-up, I'll remove their ban, otherwise they're welcome to go somewhere else. It's like it or lump it.

That being the case, am I and the mall mentioned above violating our patron's First Amendment rights? Not in the least. While you do have a right to free speech, you do not have a right to demand that people give you a forum to express your views. Moreover since we're talking about the First Amendment...

-- It doesn't give you the right to be free of criticism for your position.
-- It doesn't give you the right to demand that other people continue to pay you money if they're offended by your position.
-- It doesn't exempt you from protests or boycotts.
-- It doesn't make you brave or patriotic simply because you "dissent" from some opinion.

In essence, our freedom is speech is only a ticket to the dance. It does guarantee that you can get in the door, but it doesn't promise that you'll like every song, that no one will snicker at your moves on the dance floor, or that any of the girls will dance if you ask. That my friend, is up to you.

***Update***: According to statements that The Smoking Gun has gotten their hands on, it looks like there was more to the story. Mall Security claimed that "as they were walking through the Common Area they were stopping customers to tell why they are wearing the shirts."

Furthermore, these people were initially brought to the attention of mall security because they had gotten into a dispute with other customers, no doubt because they were, "stopping customers to tell why they are wearing the shirts." Here's what the person who contacted Macy's (who in turn contacted mall security) said...

"The customer stated that these two gentlemen were having a verbal dispute with another group of individuals in the mall. The customer was afraid of what may come out of the dispute, so she wanted to let someone know."

Given that this was the case, it now appears that the mall did the right thing when they told these people to either take off their shirts off or leave the mall. If anything, by not immediately asking them to leave, they may have been too tolerant of people who were causing a disturbance in their place of business.

Thanks to Ryan for pointing out The Smoking Gun article in the comments section.

The French Paradox by Ron Marr: I was having a hard time writing this column, and then I remembered I'd plum forgot to cut eye-holes in the pillowcase I had over my head. Everybody knows we po' Southern white trash are nothin' but a bunch a' no-account, innard-eatin' night riders with a bottle of Jack in one hand, a flaming cross in the other and a tattered Bible in the third, the latter being a genetic deformity resulting from years of non-selective inbreeding and swallowing clay.

Isn't it strange how advocates of universal diversity are always the first to denigrate those who express even the mildest disagreement to the canons of liberalism? Don't you find it odd that these intellectual "elites" - who care for the rights and feelings of all living things - in fact care not at all for the lives and happiness of any who offer the slightest dissent to their robotic mantra? (Cont)

Freaky eBay Auction: This eBay auction has nothing to do with Conservatism, but it was so freaky that I had to cover it. You might want to make sure your mouth is free of soda and that you're not getting ready to eat before you look at this...

"Up for auction is a frozen two headed calf that was still born on February 25, 2003. It has been in the freezer since it was born! Great for research!!! Please email me for shipping costs. The calf weighs 60-70 lbs. I'm not sure how to ship it! We'll discuss it if you are the winning bidder!!!"

This is really evil, but you know what my first thought was? "Wow, wouldn't it be cool to buy that calf and sneak it into a friend's apartment?" Can you imagine what would happen?

They come home late at night and it's dark as they fumble for their keys. They walk into their apartment and notice...an odd smell. Hmmm...they start to walk into the apartment and their foot hits something heavy that gives when they kick it...it almost feels like a corpse. Then as a shiver runs up their spine they reach back and hit the light switch and in the floor is that two headed monstrosity looking up at them with empty lifeless eyes. I'm telling you, that would make a Navy SEAL soil his underwear and run screaming away in horror. Like I said before, freaky....

RWN's List Of Indispensable Web Pages: As you probably guessed, I am a news/political junky. On a daily basis, I consume a truly massive amount of information, sort it, write about it, ponder it, and link it. During a week's time I literally cruise through hundreds of pages from all over the world. Well, here's a list of what I consider to be the "best of the best." By that, I mean that on average, I hit all of these pages 3 or more times per week either for my own edification or to find daily news links. If you're not familiar with all these pages -- you should be. They're not the only outstanding pages out there, but I'm hitting them for a reason...

Amish Tech Support
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Tim Blair
Blacksheep News
Blogdex
Broken Newz
The Corner
Croooow Blog
Curmudgeonly & Skeptical
Cybercast News service
Daily Pundit
Damian Penny
The Drudge Report
Fark
Front Page Magazine
IMAO
Instapundit
Joanne Jacobs
Jewish World Review
Juan Gato's Bucket o' Rants
Little Green Footballs
Lucianne
National Review
Newgrounds
Newsfilter
Newsmax
The Obscure Store And Reading Room
The Online Sun
Pejman Pundit
Rantburg
RealClear Politics
Samizdata
SatireSearch
Scrappleface
Sgt. Stryker's Daily Briefing
A Small Victory
Andrew Sullivan
Town Hall
Vodkapundit
Worldnet Daily
USS Clueless

Last but not least, what list of links would be complete without my advertisers? If you're going to go cruising the blogosphere, why not give the people who support RWN a look?

Those Shirts
Conservative Commentary
Between The Coasts
Belly Flop
Timshel Arts
Number 2 Pencil

McCarthyism? No, It's Voting With Your Wallet: The Screen Actors Guild is so upset about the lousy press & hate mail that the anti-war celebrities are getting, that SAG has actually raised the spectre of McCarthyism. Here's what SAG has to say...

"The Screen Actors Guild (SAG) said a slew of hate-mail directed at actors who have taken a public personal stand against war, along with calls for boycotts of movies and albums on the nation's talk radio airwaves and Internet message boards, "suggests that the lessons of history have, for some, fallen on deaf ears."

...SAG called it a "shameful period" for the entertainment industry, saying the industry today had a duty to guard and cherish U.S. constitutional principles of free speech rather than "prostrate itself before smear campaigns and witch hunters" as it had 50 years ago."

To begin with, there isn't going to be another blacklist of celebrities that keeps them from working and I don't expect see any US Senators waving around any secret lists. What is happening is that people who don't like the anti-war and/or unpatriotic views of certain celebrities are refusing to support them. Furthermore, they're encouraging other people to do the same and you know what? That's a good thing -- it's the 1st Amendment in action. If Sean Penn wants to go to Iraq to do free PR for Saddam, so be it. Furthermore, if Chrissie Hynde wants to root against her own country in the upcoming war with Iraq ("Bring it on! Give us what we deserve!"), that is her own choice to make, however unamerican it may be. That being said, don't expect millions of people who are sickened by their actions to pay their hard earned cash support people like this.

The same goes for Mike Farrell, Martin Sheen, Susan Sarandon, Edward Norton, Danny Glover, Alec Baldwin, Janeane Garofalo, Woody Harrelson, Barbra Streisand, etc. If that hits them in the pocketbooks or costs them some roles they would have otherwise gotten -- well that's a price these people should pay for advocating actions that would in all likelihood ultimately lead to the unnecessary deaths of millions of Americans in terrorist attacks. They may have a right to their opinions, but so does the American public. And choosing not only to speak out against these people, but to deny them any of our money is something I strongly support.

A Excellent Way Of Looking At Preemption: Ironically, Tibor Machan who is against the war in Iraq, has made an excellent point about "preemption" that is rarely brought up. Simply put, the government acts "preemptively" all the time...

"...Consider that all government regulations are preemptive measures. When government threatens to fine or jail someone for producing, say, pajamas that might catch of fire, this is preemptive. There are no immediate, imminent dangers at hand. The pajamas may never catch on fire, they simply might - or there is some evidence that they could, under circumstances thought to be frequent enough.

...Just think of the war on drugs or vice squads arresting and jailing people who engage in various peaceful activities, merely on the grounds that something bad could arise from these. When defenders of the war on drugs say, but even a little bit of indulgence can lead to bad things, so we need to ban such indulgence; or when supporters of mandated affirmative action policies claim that unless they force institutions to deal with people in ways deemed by them to be socially proper, people may be disadvantaged - in all such cases, of which there are hundreds of thousands, the state is being urged to act preemptively, to prevent possible but by no means imminent evils."

Not only is that an excellent point, I'd even go so far as to argue that since WW2, most of the conflicts our military has been involved in have been primarily preemptive in nature. For example, were we physically threatened by Vietnam, Korea or Iraq (before the Gulf War)? No -- but we went to war in order to prevent the spread of Communism which was a threat to us in the case of Vietnam and Korea and because we worried about the consequences of having a belligerent psychopath like Saddam Hussein controlling the flow of oil in the Middle-East (Saudi Arabia would have been next after Kuwait).

Last but not least, had we waged a preemptive war against Al Qaeda after the first WTC attack, not only would they not have been able to pull off 9/11, they likely would have been wiped out by now. Going after real threats that mean you harm before they can strike isn't new, it has been around for a long time. More importantly, it's smart policy to strike preemptively when it's possible.

The Theme Song For The Human Shields: I couldn't resist taking one more cheap shot at the human shields. So without further adieu, but with many thanks to whoever wrote "Brave Sir Robin" from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail", here's the new theme song for war tourists, "The Brave Human Shields."

On the way into Iraq...

The bravely bold human shields rode forth from Britain.
They were not afraid to die, o the brave human shields.
They were not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways,
the brave, brave, brave, brave human shields.

There were not in the least bit scared to be blown to hell,
Or to have their eyes blasted out and their elbows broken,
To have their kneecaps split and their bodies burned away,
And their limbs all hacked and mangled, the brave human shields...

Their heads smashed in and their hearts torn out,
And their livers exploded and their bowels unplugged,
And their nostrils obliterated and their bottoms burnt off...

On the way out of Iraq...

The brave human shields ran away
Bravely, ran away... away...
When danger reared its ugly head,
They bravely turned tail and fled.

Yes, bravely the human shields turned about
And gallantly they chickened out.
Bravely taking to their feet,
They beat a very brave retreat...
Bravest of the brave, the human shields.

Thanks to Little Tiny Lies for the inspiration.

The Galactic Orion/Sirian/Draconian Federation Of Reptiles Have Been In Control Of Earth For Eons: If you thought David Icke was crazy, you were right. But even Icke isn't in the same class as the deeply disturbed person who runs Wiolawa Press & Photos. This guy gibbers madly about Icke's bizarre lizard fantasies and then mixes in lots of pics of ordinary objects run through photoshop filters which he claims are proof that he's correct. I considered showing some of the pics to you, but they're nothing but normal people, rocks, etc, that to this guy's damaged brain look like lizards, pterodactyls, & aliens. For this guy's sake and for the sake of the people around him, I hope he's doing this web page from an asylum somewhere. That being said, get ready for the weirdest edition of ACPOTI (Anyone can post on the internet) ever...

Separated At Birth: Somebody had to do it -- might as well be RWN...

War Tourists Leaving Iraq: As most of you have probably heard, many of the human shields war tourists are leaving Iraq now that the Iraqis are insisting that they actually start "shielding" some potential targets. But truth be told, as this article from the Daily Telegraph reveals, many of these people never intended to truly be "human shields" in the first place...

"On the bus, Sue Darling, who was in touch with Dr Hashimi, had told the shields they would stay with families or in schools, hospitals and orphanges."

So basically, many of these people were planning to go to all the places that the US military would bend over backwards not to attack in the first place. But now that they're being asked to "shield" areas of strategic importance that may actually be hit it's a different story...

"I am ashamed to be leaving you at this time of need, but I'm going out of pure, cold fear," Godfrey Meynell, 68, told the two Iraqi factory workers standing before him. His white hair was, as always, unbrushed; his navy windcheater zipped up to the chin. "This power plant is next to a bridge, surrounded by Republican Guard," he continued. "It's obviously a prime target." The men, who understood this fear too well, returned his handshake and thanked him warmly."

According to another article by the Daily Telegraph, only about 65 out of 200 human shields have "agreed to take up positions at the oil refineries, power plants and water-purification sites selected by their hosts." How many of those 65 people will make it through the war without being...

1) Killed by bombs
2) Killed by Saddam's men
3) Slaughtered after the war is over in the general chaos or because they were helping Saddam

You know what we have here? A bunch of goofballs who treated a symbolic gesture as if it were a serious idea, got in way over their heads, and now they're going to have to either slink out of Iraq with their tails between their legs or risk dying in a completely pointless attempt to save a murderous regime. I can't say that I feel sorry for them because all of this was predictable from day one.

As Iraqi blogger Salam Pax said on Jan 26th, "Those foreigners are all over the place, I think I know what it should be called: War Tourism. betcha they will be out of here faster than you can say 'Iraqi-peace-team' when things get a bit too hot." Indeed.

In My World: President Bush to Do Own Lawn Care By Frank J: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, allegedly the planner of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, is now in U.S. custody, having been captured in Pakistan. President Bush was quick to give a statement about the victory.

"Yeah, we got that sucka!" Bush announced to the press, "I have plans to personally question Mohammed to find what other evil terrorist secrets he is hiding."

When asked if he would be willing to use torture to extract information from Mohammed, Bush answered, "Absolutely not. Torture is bad, and we are a civilized nation."

"So why do you have a rubber hose with you?" a reporter asked.

"Uh... because I plan on watering the White House lawn after questioning Mohammed."

"Don't you have a lawn service to do that?"

"Hey, I'm just trying to save the tax payers money!" Bush answered angrily, "Now stop asking me so many questions or I'll beat you with this hose just like I'm about to beat Khalid Shaikh Mohammed!"

White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer soon gave a press conference to once again explain that Bush didn't mean what he said. He didn't seem in the mood for taking questions today, though.

"Why do we have to tell you idiots anything?" Fleischer asked, "Everyone hates you people. We're the government of the United States of America. We don't have to explain ourselves to anyone!"

"Don't you owe explanations of your actions to the American people?" answered a reporter.

"That's an interesting theory," Fleischer stated, "and I will respond to it by throwing a beer bottle at your head." Fleischer was true to his word.

"Do have to drink during these press conferences?" asked another reporter, one who was not now bleeding.

Fleischer saw Helen Thomas preparing to ask a question. "Yes."

"Why does President Harding want an illegal war for oil?" Thomas asked. "Why does he want to kill innocent Iraqi children?"

"Helen, please, if there is any decency in you, just lie down on the ground and stop breathing," Fleischer urged.

"You stole my pills earlier today!" Thomas yelled at him. "You give them back."

"No. And I don't want any more questions about this "Blood for Oil" nonsense. As I keep explaining to you people, we already stole all of Iraq's oil while we were distracting Saddam with the inspections. This war with Iraq is pure bloodlust, plain and simple, and oil has nothing to do with it."

"What is the White House's response to the increasing rhetoric from North Korea? They claim that the CIA is plotting to blow up their reactors, and that they will respond with a nuclear war."

"Nuclear war against whom?" Fleischer laughed, "Pasadena? Their nukes are pathetic."

"But they could hit South Korea and Japan."

Fleischer shrugged his shoulders. "So what? We don't live there. I say let the CIA blow up their reactors. President Bush's official opinion is that the CIA is that they can do whatever they want as long as they don't assassinate him like they did JFK."

"Is there any truth to the fact that you and President Bush secretly met with Jimmy Carter under the pretenses of asking him to negotiate with North Korea, but then proceeded to beat him up and steal his lunch money."

Fleischer pounded his fist into his palm. "That little squealer! Uh... I mean... I want the press to know that Jimmy Carter is a dirty liar and that all the cool politicians hate him."

President Bush then ran into the room. "Hey, Ari, can I borrow your hose. I need it to go spray some protestors."

"What happened to yours?"

"I broke it on a terrorist. Come on, I hear Martin Sheen is among them. Maybe I can give him some up close and personal lessons on how a real president beats up a protestor."

"Kick *ss!" Fleischer exclaimed, running off with Bush.

"But we have questions about the state of current affairs that are important to the American people!" one reporter protested, Fleischer and Bush were already gone. "Who am I kidding; we would have more viewers if we were questioning Zora from Joe Millionaire."

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

Why We Need A Balanced Budget Amendment: In principle, Republicans tend to favor cutting the size of government while Democrats favor more government spending. However in practice, both Republicans and Democrats favor spending our hard earned tax money like water.

So why do our politicians continue to recklessly spend our money? Because we the American people demand that they do so. Although the American people want a balanced budget, they also want more government services as well. That leads to a conundrum for American politicians who only stay in office if they please the people. If the politicians spend more money they make people happy -- but they also make them unhappy by increasing the debt -- but they have to make the people happy to stay in office -- but increasing the debt is bad for the country which will eventually lead to the people being unhappy, etc, etc.

All of this may seem quite confusing, but since spending more money makes whoever is getting the pork in question happy and since it's hard to place specific blame for the deficit, politicians tend to favor spending more money over lowering the deficit. Furthermore, it's very difficult to cut spending on anything because of course, you're taking someone's pork away, someone who may get angry enough to do something about it when election time comes around.

The seeming fiscal restraint of the government that we saw during the Clinton years was largely an illusion. It was the result of a thriving economy, defense cuts that were far too deep, and the Republicans in Congress suddenly getting serious about holding down spending since there was a Democrat in the White House. Since none of those conditions exist today, we've seen government spending go up drastically and that's not likely to change in the next few years although when the economy comes back, tax revenue increases will help shrink the deficit significantly.

I, like many people, am of the opinion that it's very important for the United States government to live within its means. The government cannot continue to spend money hand over fist that it does not have, especially since the Social Security program is projected to start running deficits in roughly a decade. That's why we need a balanced budget amendment.

If we want to raise government spending and the money's there -- I'd say we should probably get a tax cut instead -- but if we choose to spend it, fine. However, if we want to raise spending when the money isn't there, then we need to slash spending somewhere else. If we had been doing that all along, we wouldn't have a six and a half trillion dollar debt, but we would have a real "Social Security Trust Fund" instead of a bunch of IOUs most taxpayers are unaware that they're going to have to pay off. If we really, truly want a balanced budget year after year, we're going to have to mandate it by law to make it happen. Remember, all this money we're spending is going to come due one day and the American taxpayers of the future are going to pay the bill for all of the money we have wasted. That's an unfair burden that we're passing on to future generations and we need to do something about it while the debt is still at a fairly manageable size.

I Am A Paecemaker! Peace Is My Gun!: Hadez who on occasion writes, does graphics, and proofreading for RWN let me know last night that he had a live one on ICQ. It seems that when Hadez created his ICQ account years ago, he put down Iraq as his home country on a lark. Well, some guy from Brazil who claimed to have a radio show ICQ'd Hadez last night and started asking him all sorts of questions with an anti-American slant about Iraq. So Hadez decided to goof on him by making up all kinds of BS in an effort to get him to broadcast it over the radio in Brazil. Then he told me about it and I decided to get in on the act.

Five minutes later, after making a few changes to my ICQ details, Jordan Abdul, AKA Holywarrior was born. I then added "Doug" (the name was changed to protect the ignorant from harassment) to his ICQ list. Hadez had already told him I was his professor at Baghdad U and that I was one of Saddam's cousins. Here's the cleaned-up transcript of the ICQ prank... (Cont)

***Update***: Hadez put the transcript of his conversation with "Doug" up on the web as well. Do keep in mind that Hadez wasn't trying to be funny -- well except for the robot part near the end -- he was just feeding him misinformation. You can read it here.