When Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, he promised to cut taxes. Sure he lied -- big shocker there I know -- but at least he was smart enough to understand that you're going to have one heck of a tough time getting elected President if you're promising to raise people's taxes. Unfortunately for the Democrats, the current crop of Dems trying to win the White House don't seem to understand that. As RNC Research is pointing out, every one of the Dem's top tier candidates are promising to wipe out part or even all of Bush's tax cuts if they're elected...

"Dean (D-VT) Wants To Raise Taxes. “We must repeal the entire package of cuts – both those signed today and those passed in 2001.” (Thomas Beaumont, “Dean Touts Wiping Out Tax Cuts,” Des Moines Register, 5/31/03)

Lieberman (D-CT) Wants To Raise Taxes. ‘“We need to take some of those tax cuts to people with incomes over $250,000 a year away. They don’t need it,’ Lieberman said.” (Julie Bisbee, “Lieberman Criticizes Bush, Calls For Middle-Class Tax Relief,” The Associated Press, 10/14/03)"

Even when the economy is bad, promising to increase the tax burden on the American people is only going to hurt you at the ballot box. But if the economy is doing well -- and some economists are predicting as much as 7% growth of the economy during the third quarter -- tax increases are going to be about as popular as Linda Tripp at a Clinton family BBQ.

You have to remember that when Bush came into office there was a recession & there were corporate scandals in progress that would later break. Then to top it all off 9/11 happened early in his term. All of these things were big drags on the economy. So what did Bush do? He told everyone the solution was tax cuts to stimulate the economy and what do you know, now the economy seems be coming back in a big way again just like Bush said it would. If the good economic news keeps on flooding in -- and that looks likely at this point -- the Democratic candidates are going to really regret shooting off their big mouths about hiking taxes when election time rolls around next year.

Nobody and I mean nobody gets the inside scoop on the war on terrorism like the Weekly World News. For example, while Fox or CNN haven't even reported that Osama Bin Laden & Saddam have gotten married to each other, the WWN actually has a pic of the two of them together along with a shaved down ape the two of them have adopted....

But that's not all! Here are a few choice quotes from the story that the mainstream press doesn't have the guts to tell you about!

"Saddam -- who is the "woman" in the strange coupling....turned on a trusted bodyguard "like a mama lion" when the man made a crude comment about the terror kingpins' September nuptials and then accidentally jabbed the baby chimp with a diaper pin while laughing at his own joke.

By the time stick-thin Osama pulled stocky Saddam off, the bodyguard, a Saddam relative, had very nearly been blinded -- with both of his eyes, a source says, "having very nearly been scratched out."

Now why would the mainstream media cover this story up? Could it be to protect a certain group of cheese eating surrender monkeys who might be embarrassed by this revelation?

"By the time the CIA found out about their hastily arranged but well attended wedding in late September -- French President Jacques Chirac and PLO chief Yasser Arafat were among its many dignitaries -- the doe-eyed couple who exchanged vows in northern Iraq were holed up in a honeymoon love nest thousands of miles away...in France."

Unfortunately, the WWN says Saddam and Osama escaped to Syria before we had a chance to capture them. Hey, next time, don't screw around getting warrants and permission to arrest them, just carpet bomb the area they're in with MOABs and send a fruit basket as a "sorry we bombed your country gift" afterwards. I believe that's what Frank J. of IMAO would suggest and if it's good enough for a violent internet humor columnist, it's good enough for me!

If you like RWN, how about supporting us by checking out some of our advertisers? The more traffic we send to them, the better value they get for their money, & the more likely they are to keep spending their money here. So how about helping me out by taking a look at...

Delta Star
Electric Venom
Ghost Of A Flea
Lex Libertas
Right Wing Nut
Right Wing Stuff
VitaminUSA
Widgets
Zogby Blog
DANEgerus Weblog
Neowhig 2004
RightNation
The Sake Of Argument

As I was reading an ABCNEWS article about Antonin Scalia, I ran across this unintentionally telling line....

"Scalia is a hero of conservatives who favor a strict adherence to the actual text of the Constitution."

Sadly, "a strict adherence to the actual text of the Constitution" will only make you a hero with conservatives, not liberals. Liberals make heroes out of judges who believe in a "living constitution" which is really nothing more than a polite euphemism for, "we'll make up the law as we go along and claim it's in the Constitution".

If you want to know why we have these titanic dogfights in the Senate over judges, that's why. Conservatives want to put judges in office who enforce the Constitution and the left adores judges who'll implement their agenda. That's what really goes on and I'm just surprised that ABCNEWS is willing to allude to it, even if it's in a roundabout way.

I'm sure most of you have heard about the flap over General Jerry Boykin's comments. Here's are some excerpts from an article in the LA Times that give you the gist of what he supposedly said...

"In June of 2002, Jerry Boykin stepped to the pulpit at the First Baptist Church of Broken Arrow, Okla., and described a set of photographs he had taken of Mogadishu, Somalia, from an Army helicopter in 1993.

...In Iraq, he told the Oregon congregation, special operations forces were victorious precisely because of their faith in God. "Ladies and gentlemen I want to impress upon you that the battle that we're in is a spiritual battle," he said . "Satan wants to destroy this nation, he wants to destroy us as a nation, and he wants to destroy us as a Christian army"."

The reality here is that Boykin is a Christian in a predominantly Christian nation talking to other Christians in a church about his faith. Some of the things he said -- like the comment about the blemish -- seem a little far out even to me. But the comments he has taken the most flack for aren't really out of the ordinary sentiments in America.

The honest truth is that if you tossed out everyone in the military who believes that God is on our side, that Satan has a hand in evil acts perpetrated against our country, or even that Muslims aren't worshipping the one true God and are therefore idol worshipers, we wouldn't have enough troops left to field an army.

But that's one of the great things about our country. Even if we don't agree with someone else's religious views, we here in America tolerate them -- unless they're a Christian like General Boykin in which case a bunch of politically correct liberals, secular humanists, and knock-kneed Republicans who are afraid of controversy come down on them like a ton of bricks.

Personally, I support Boykin 110% even if I don't agree with everything he is reported to have said. It's too bad that many of the people who continually chide Americans to be more tolerant are just mouthing empty platitudes or they'd back Boykin too even if they disagreed with his religious views.

If ever a website cried out "lock up me in a rubber room and give me powerful psychotropic drugs until I'm sane again," it's my bodyweight. The entire page is a melange of bizarre claims about the timeline and the government vomited up from the recesses of a demented mind. Here are a few samples to give you an idea of what I'm talking about...

"Whitehouse has made use time access to automatic-brain-seizure mode time-synched the FBI, Secret Service and other agencies, in my life as early as 1987 and by direct FBI entry since 1990, Agents as co-workers in my jobs. Most actually very nice people and respectful. It's been over 10 years, yet all done in a second from now. Why all this started now in 1997? marital entrapment, no livelihood, no work, why?"

Uh...what? Maybe this guy doesn't have a job because he needs to be in an asylum somewhere with doctors watching him 24-7 until his brain starts functioning normally again. Then there's this....

"Sean Penn and Madonna?

1. Sean Pen to denote me hitting my ex-wife Betty with a Pen?
2. M.A.D claims due to Pen ?
3. Madonna Italian to denote link to Betty Ancestry?
4. Sean Penn, "Fast times at Ridge-mont high to link to Tom Ridge?
5. Satellite time neuro-cephalic output to destroy their marriage with
similar degree of time created neurocephalic acrymony and discord, sa
same as done to my marriage by the same impostor, same criminal who
has stolen use of time from me and has use it to destroy lives, destroy
marriages, entrap people, and time-entrap and time frame anyone."

This stuff reminds me of the part of "A Beautiful Mind" where Russell Crowe was delusionally circling random words from magazines in an attempt to crack foreign codes for an imaginary government agent. Here's one more entry...

"Drew Barrymore entire life has been time-accessed and destroyed by an impostor who occupies the stolen use of time, who does not care or concerns about anyone life, instead uses the stolen power of time, to creates sequences of pain, sorrow, anguish in anyone else's life and link such to me or my family, as it has been the case with Drew Barrymore and her family

Drew Barrymore, movies, all done by time synch to brief me of my baby Amanda brain "fire starter", movie of Drew which she uses brain powers to make fire, Amanda brain, been my daughter, will be able, like me, to do acts of Midas physics or alter matter, same network access, thus the demons and the impostor kidnapped her from me, using illegal sequestration and other means of law, to then lie to mother and steal her blood, put demon as friends, control her for them, for they think that baby Mandy is going to make t hem white from blacks, and those white and blacks who are turned to snakes unbecoming such."

I'm sorry, but anyone who is this out of it shouldn't be allowed to wander around without surpervision. One of these days someone may say something to him like, "Hey buddy, you look a little pale, can I help you out" & he'll hear "I'm a robot from the future! Smash my head open! It's filled with magical candy that will keep the imposters from shifting the timeline!" People like this guy are why mental hospitals were invented -- let's hope he ends up in one before he hurts himself or someone else down in Miami...

An overnight poll shows that business leaders nationwide overwhelmingly support the economic stimulus plan announced yesterday by Democrat presidential candidate Wesley Clark.

The vast majority of those polled agreed that Clark's proposed repeal of the Bush tax cuts for families earning more than $200,000 annually is almost guaranteed to spark a boom in consumer spending that would create more jobs.

Clark's plan calls for using the money recalled from taxpayers to shrink the deficit and boost spending on homeland security, health care, financial aid to states and incentives for businesses to create jobs.

"That's a whole lot better than wasting money by returning it to the taxpayers and taxpaying businesses from whence it came," said an unnamed owner of a small factory near Peculiar, Missouri. "I particularly like the government incentives to create jobs. My company is just so lazy about creating jobs. We need the government to give us a good reason to do it. We've been walking away from sales and leaving orders unfilled because we just don't want the hassle of hiring more people to handle the increased production."

Business leaders also endorsed, by a 4-to-1 margin, Clark's plan to increase financial aid to states.

"We'd love to surrender our tax-cuts so the Federal government can take that money from Missouri and give it to Kansas," the factory owner said. "It's all fair, because they'll be taking money from Kansas to give it to Missouri. Most business leaders agree with Wes Clark that the problem with America is that the money is all in the wrong places. For example, innovative, industrious people have far too much money. That's why we pay Federal employees to rearrange our money, putting it where it wouldn't otherwise naturally go."

As Mr. Clark announced his new plan, he said, "Thanks to George Bush, the Federal government is in a hole. You've heard the old expression 'If you're in a hole, stop digging.' Well, I say 'If you're in a hole that you dug, get the taxpayers to pull you out.' That's the philosophy behind my plan to rescue our democratic bureaucracy."

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

You have just got to read this unhinged editorial about neocons from Paul Craig Roberts that appeared in Newsmax of all places. Here are a few snippets from this loopy editorial....

-- "Neo-Jacobins are known to Americans as "neoconservatives," a clever euphemism behind which hides a gang of radicals who stand outside of, and opposed to, the American tradition."

-- "Ryn shows that Jacobins have not a drop of conservative blood in their veins."

-- "...the Jacobin agenda is to remake America into an empire capable of imposing virtue on the world.

-- "Once Americans associated invading foreign countries (Afghanistan) with the "war on terror," Jacobins shifted the "terrorist threat" to Iraq. Now they are working to shift it to Syria, Iran and Lebanon. Next will be Saudi Arabia and Egypt."

-- "The Jacobin agenda requires large numbers of American troops and heavy taxation to support massive military budgets. It means the return of the draft.

It also explains why Jacobins are unconcerned with our own country's porous borders while they seek to control Middle Eastern borders. The hordes of young Mexicans pouring into the United States are a convenient source of cannon fodder, just as President Lincoln redirected the flow of Irish immigrants in his day into the Union Army."

-- "Jacobins are dangerous because they lack historical understanding and rely on abstract righteousness to impose ideological unity. Their drive for like-mindedness implies coercion, the gulag and the Orwellian state. The Jacobin agenda means the end of Western civilization."

-- "Jacobins are to be found among both political parties and among both "conservative" and "liberal" columnists. As a result of conservative befuddlement, Jacobins now control the formerly conservative media, foundations and think tanks, and they occupy most of the putatively "conservative" posts in universities."

I'm not going to pull any punches here. Roberts is making about as much sense as the nuts who claim that the Illuminati rule the world. Moreover, 95% of what you see written about neocons is purely delusional poppycock that the writers may as well just be making up off the top of their heads.

The reality is that the term neocon was originally coined to describe left-wingers who moved to the right. Beyond that, even prominent neoconservatives like Jonah Goldberg & Max Boot can't describe any truly coherent set of beliefs that neocons adhere to.

But even if you ascribe hawkish pro-Democracy foreign policy views to all neocons, there's not a dime's worth of difference between the way neocons like Richard Perle & Paul Wolfowitz believe we should prosecute the war on terrorism and the way run-of the-mill conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, Donald Rumsfeld, and Victor Davis Hanson think we should go about it.

So all these ridiculous claims that the mysterious and spooky neocons are going to bring back the draft so we can invade Egypt, set-up an American empire, and end Western civilization are just that -- ridiculous claims made by people who quite frankly don't have any idea what they're talking about.

Too much Ann Coulter is never enough! That's why I've compiled the best quotes from Ann's columns over the last year. Read and enjoy! (Cont)

***Update #1***: By the way, I found this quote from Ann to be particularly interesting...

"(John) Kerry claims he is still foursquare behind disarming Saddam Hussein, but not "until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action." As George Bush pointed out in his State of the Union address, dictators are not in the habit of "politely putting us on notice before they strike." By the time a threat is "imminent," Chicago will be gone." -- Ann Coulter on Jan 29, 2003

So back in Jan, before the war, Ann Coulter felt compelled to defend Bush for invading Iraq even though Bush WASN'T claiming the threat was imminent. Fast forward to today and we have people on the left trying to claim that Bush lied to the American people by telling us that the threat WAS imminent back then. This is just such a great example of how a lot of lefties are dishonest enough to try to completely rewrite history if that's what it takes to attack their political enemies.

To me, priority #1 of the government of the United States should be to defend our country from hostile nations and organizations that want to harm Americans. But according to these poll numbers from the latest Byron York column, the overwhelming majority of Democrats don't agree....

"In one question, pollsters read a list of a dozen topics — education, taxes, big government, the environment, Social Security and Medicare, crime and illegal drugs, moral values, healthcare, the economy and jobs, fighting terrorism, homeland security, and the situation in Iraq — and asked, “Which concern worries you the most?”

In South Carolina, 56 percent favored the first statement and 33 percent the second."

Maybe the Democrats should change their symbol from a donkey to an ostrich with its head in the sand. That seems appropriate for a group of people who are more concerned about making nice with countries like France and Belgium than defending America from another 9/11. Putting the lives of Americans into the hands of people who have this sort of "let's just cross our fingers and hope against hope that everything turns out OK" approach to dealing with our enemies would be a recipe for tragedy. For America's sake, let's hope that the terrorists aren't fortunate enough to have a Democrat capture the White House in 2004.

"Gen. William Boykin, do you take back your statements about God and the current fight with terrorists?" asked a reporter.

"No. America is a Christian nation, and God has helped us all the way by putting Bush in office and giving us victory against the terrorists who worship a false god," Gen. Boykin answered.

"And how can you be sure of that?"

"Because I say so!" answered a booming voice.

Everyone turned to see the giant figure of God, wearing a duster and a kick@ss cowboy hat. "America is truly a nation under Me," the Lord continued, "and I'm tired of dealing with all others."

"Can you prove you're really God," asked a skeptical reporter.

"Sure I can... SMITE! SMITE! SMITE!"

Reporters started dropping dead.

"I thought You were supposed to be benevolent!" exclaimed a panicked reporter.

"You're thinking of Jesus," God chuckled, "Now I'm going to get Old Testament on all the enemies of America!"

* * * *

"God has gone on a total rampage against terrorists," the anchorwoman reported, "His first action was to lift up the entire nation of Syria and then beat Saudi Arabia with it. We go now to a videotaped statement from Osama bin Laden."

"I thought Allah was on our side," said a frightened Osama, "but He's totally killing us all! He's even worse than America and the Joooos!" Osama looked behind him. "Oh s**t! Here He comes!"

The videotape ended and the anchorwoman came back on screen. "France has come out to condemn the unilateral action of the U.S., Britain, and the Lord Almighty. France was subsequently swallowed by the earth."

* * * *

"Oh no!" Buck the Marine exclaimed, "I'm outta bullets and there are still more terrorists to kill!"

"Hey, what's that falling from the sky," said another Marine, "Is it manna from heaven?"

"Better," Bush answered, "It's ammo! And hollow points too! I guess God doesn't follow the Geneva Convention."

* * * *

"I think at this debate today, we Democrats should focus on policy issues instead of Bush hatred," Sen. Liberman said very slowly and boringly.

The crowd started booing and throwing things at Liberman. "We want mindless Bush hatred!" shouted one of the crowd.

Suddenly a giant figure crashed through the roof. "Oh no!" Gephardt squealed, "It's God and He looks wrathful!"

"Bush will be president for I have said so!" God announced, "and thus Democrats must be smoten!" Lightning and fireballs flew at all the Democrats. "Kill! Maim! Destroy! Make alive no longer!" God shouted while laughing maniacally.

"Religious extremist!" shouted a Democrat just before exploding into flames.

* * * *

"Do you condone God's partisan attacks?" a reporter asked.

"Well, I never planned to slaughter all the Democrat candidates," Bush answered, chuckling a bit, "but you're not going to get me to publicly disagree with God."

"Don't you think God is being a little harsh?" asked another reporter, "When terrorists pleaded to Him for mercy, said He didn't understand their language and then crushed them under foot."

"The glory of God is a mystery to all," Bush explained, "and thus he can be both omniscient and only speak and understand English." Bush thought for a moment. "Wow! I pronounced 'omniscient' correctly. That must mean..."

* * * *

"Wake up!" Condi commanded harshly.

"What?" Bush asked groggily.

"At important meetings about national security," Condi said angrily, "It's traditional to STAY AWAKE!"

Bush laid his head back down. "I'm following the Reagan tradition."

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

I think Dick Morris is a brilliant political tactician, but the two of us obviously have very different ideas about WHY politicians should be running for office. I think you can get a pretty good idea of what Morris thinks by reading his latest column. Here are a few excerpts from the piece that should give you the gist of it...

"(T)he Republican Party has paid the price for its coalition with the advocates of bedroom regulation. The Christian right has so alienated women that it has opened up a gender gap that often swells to more than 20 points, crippling Republican candidates.

...It is about time that the Republican Party realizes that the Christian right is doing to it exactly what the radical black Rainbow Coalition of Jesse Jackson did to the Democratic Party in the ’80s — making them unelectable. Their embrace is the kiss of death. It is not that the religious right is wrong. Right or wrong, it gets in the way of so much good that the Republican Party could achieve if it were not in the Christian right’s grasp."

First off, Arnold Schwarzenegger is a candidate who won a recall election in a very liberal state as much as anything because a lot of people thought it would be really "cool" to have "the Terminator" as their governor. Schwarzenegger is a fluke, not a trend.

Furthermore, despite Morris' complaints about the gender gap, the GOP currently controls the House, Senate, Presidency, Supreme Court, and a majority of state legislatures and governorships. So while what we're doing right now certainly isn't perfect, it's nothing to sneeze at either.

But here's the quote from Morris that I really wanted to talk about,

"It is not that the religious right is wrong. Right or wrong, it gets in the way of so much good that the Republican Party could achieve if it were not in the Christian right’s grasp."

In a nutshell, that sort of thinking is the biggest problem with politics in America today. Sure, I'll grant you that it's much easier for a politician to get elected if he simply licks his finger -- slurp -- sticks it up in the air, and goes whichever way the wind seems to be blowing. But what's the point of electing pols who don't care about anything except getting elected again?

Politicians should want to go to Washington so they can implement an agenda that they believe is good for America. If a pol abandons the principles that their most ardent supporters hold dear just to make it a little easier to get reelected, then why shouldn't voters be cynical and sick of politicians? How can you respect mediocrities who are more interested in gaining money, power, and glory for themselves instead of doing the right thing for our country?

Personally, I believe politicians who are willing to do the right thing even when it's unpopular, like Reagan, Tom Delay, or Tom Tancredo are more valuable to the GOP and more importantly to our country than any 10 third rate RINOS like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Michael Bloomberg, John McCain, Olympia Snowe, or Orrin Hatch. Americans who take righteous stands based on principles, not weak-kneed toad eaters who are willing to do anything to gain a point or two at the polls, are a big part of why America has been such a successful nation.

Through a friend of mine, I got an opportunity to do a mini-interview with a soldier from 2nd Brigade, First Armored Division who arrived in Baghdad in late April and left earlier this month. Because there is such a vast difference between what we've been hearing from the news media and from many other people who've actually been in Iraq, I thought it would be worth the time to hear what a soldier who served in Iraq had to say.

However, he was hesitant to do the interview because he isn't a "public affairs officer" & he didn't think it was his "place to talk to the press 'internet or not' without authorization" & so he asked to remain anonymous. While I'm not a big fan of basing stories on anonymous sources, since no one reading RWN would know who this soldier was anyway and since nothing he said struck me as particularly controversial, I agreed to his condition. I also edited the interview down to the most relevant portions. Read and enjoy ...

John Hawkins: So you did police work in Baghdad basically right?

Soldier X: There was a significant amount of patrolling...many raids, in search of contraband and members of the most wanted list.

John Hawkins: What was the reaction of the Iraqis in the general population to the raids? It must be pretty scary to have a bunch of guys kicking in one of your neighbor's doors...

Soldier X: Yes, they did not like being disturbed at 4 AM. Most raids would have a public affairs there to attempt to explain why we were doing the raid.

John Hawkins: Were people friendly to you when you were on patrol?

Soldier X: Well...yes. All the kids waved when we drove by.

John Hawkins: Did anyone throw rocks or did the crowds ever get hostile?

Soldier X: I was never involved with a "hostile" crowd. In talking with members of the 3rd Infantry Division...the guys who fought the war...that's the way the crowds would be. Waving and cheering for you one minute, then shooting an RPG at you the next.

John Hawkins: So are most of the Iraqis in Baghdad friendly towards Americans?

Soldier X: Yes, the vast majority are and if they aren't they keep it to themselves mostly.

John Hawkins: In your opinion, how do most Iraqis view the occupation? Do they see it as a necessary evil, do they want Americans to go ASAP?

Soldier X: Tough question...I'd say they all are happy to have the old regime gone, but many were disappointed by the degradation of basic services. water, electricity, etc and the time it took to repair them. So although I didn't talk with many Iraqis that told me that wanted the U.S. out, I'm sure there is that feeling.

John Hawkins: In your opinion, how much support does the resistance there have?

Soldier X: Little. There are pockets of the population in Baghdad that turn a blind eye, (but that's it).

John Hawkins: Now if you read the press coverage here in the states, it's VERY negative. The situation always seems to be "worsening", the Iraqis are sick of Americans, progress is sparse, yada, yada, yada. Does that fit with what you've seen in Iraq?

Soldier X: Of course not. The country may not be standing on it's two feet yet (and) I believe it is absurd to think it will anytime soon. But life for the average Iraqi has probably returned to as good, if not better, than during Saddam's regime.

Let's put it this way; the average Iraqi lives in a state of poverty unseen in America. No one did anything that required initiative because it could have been interpreted as a threat to the regime. So they were happy to get there monthly food basket, do as they were told, and live without the scrutiny of the authorities. Iraq is not a poor country, Saddam just kept everything for himself and the Ba'ath party. If you lived outside the walls of the palace you were just an animal, inside, the sky was the limit.

John Hawkins: How's the morale?

Soldier X: Not where it should be. We aren't taking care of our soldiers.

John Hawkins: So if the military said to you, "What do we need to do to improve morale in Iraq," what would you suggest?

Soldier X: Ok, first of all, a one year deployment is absolutely unacceptable for any soldier unless he/she volunteers for it. The biggest improvement to morale would be to get these guys out of there in a timely manner. Really I believe we need a larger army, we should activate at least 2 more divisions, maybe 3.

John Hawkins: I agree with you -- I think we cut back too much in the Clinton years....So sum it up for RWN's readers -- how do you view the situation in Iraq? How is it going and how do you think it's going to turn out?

Soldier X: It is not going to be an easy road to get Iraq on it's feet, but it is what we HAVE to do.

John Hawkins: Do you believe it's going to work?

Soldier X: Eventually Iraq will flourish. In 10-15 years you may be taking your kids there on vacation. :D

John Hawkins: Heh -- that's a good line to end on =) Thanks for your time!

As regular readers of RWN are aware, I am a big fan of horror movies and so it was a given that I was going to see the remake of "Texas Chainsaw Massacre". But truth be told, despite the fact this movie did 29.1 million dollars right out of the gate, I can't recommend it to the other horror junkies out there.

Now why do I say that? Was it because of the plot? No, it's not that. The plot was a standard one for a slasher flick. Five kids happen upon some psychos and try to survive through the night. While that's not exactly the stuff legendary films are made of, it's perfectly acceptable for a horror movie.

Well what about the production values? They were excellent. The acting? For a horror movie, the acting was fine. The chief villain? Leatherface is a classic, just like Jason or Freddy.

So why can't I recommend this movie to you even though I wouldn't call it a bad film? Simply put, the movie breaks absolutely no new ground. There's not one scene, one character, one moment in this movie that feels creative, fresh, or new. It's a classic slasher flick-- like the original -- so much so that you feel like you're seeing a movie that's two decades behind the times.

I mean how many times have we seen a bunch of teenagers picked off by some maniac who wants to kill them with a machete, axe, or chainsaw? How many horror movies have featured a bunch of weird family members? How many times have we seen chases through the woods and teenagers hiding and hoping not to be discovered by the main bad guy? Everything about this movie from beginning to end just leaves you with the feeling of "been there, done that, got the t-shirt".

So, even though this isn't a bad horror film, it's not a good one either. So I cannot recommend that you go see it in the theater, although it may be worth checking out on video down the road if you're looking for something semi-scary that you haven't seen yet. Thumbs down...

I ran across the following story told by Brett Stephens in an excellent Jerusalem Post article called "Meet Richard Perle" and it was so cool that I thought it deserved a wider audience....

"There’s a story told about Bush’s visit to the World Trade Center, right after the attack.

And Bush said, "You won’t be disappointed."

I don't know whether that story is true, but it would be great if it was. Someone send this over to Snopes and maybe they can dig into it and find out...

The Malaysian Prime Minister said that Jews control the world. All this time I thought it was gravity, but, no, it was the Jews! When there was a big uproar against his statements, the PM said that only proved that Jews control the world. It's good we have Malaysian Prime Ministers to figure things out like that for us.

You probably are wondering why the Jews get blamed for everything and not someone else like the Polynesians. Well, it's because "Jews" is easy and fun to yell. Try it right now. Just shake your fist in the air and shout, "JEWS!" Isn't that fun.

And any time you spill ketchup on yourself, drop your pen, or run out of toilet paper, instead of moping there feeling sorry for yourself, it's a lot more satisfying to shout out angrily, "JEWS!"

Anyway, the Jews do have an overly large influence in the world if you think about it. Why are bagels so good and plentiful in New York City? It's because of the...

JEWS!

Why is their kosher salt available at the supermarket? It's on account of...

JEWS!

Ever been called a "schmuck" or accused of having "chutzpah"? People wouldn't use those words if it weren't for the...

JEWS!

Seen a synagogue in your town? It's only there because of the...

JEWS!

I've also heard that the Jews killed Jesus (actually, there's a whole film produced by Mel Gibson coming out about the crucifixion of which the working title is Look What Those Pesky Jews Did!). It seems strange to get angry about that, though, since Jesus came back to life a few days later; no harm, no foul. But did you know that Jesus was Jewish? Maybe Christianity is some big Jewish conspiracy. Ever get annoyed about having to get up early on a Sunday to go to church? Well, it's because of the...

JOOOOOS!

And what about terrorism? You know why terrorists bomb people? It's because they're ignorant murderous, scumbags. But how do they have energy to commit their attacks? Because they eat food. And what do they eat? Goat and lambs. And what's a female lamb called? It's called an...

EWE!

Which sounds a lot like...

JEW!

Which doesn't prove anything... but it doesn't disprove anything either!

And just today, a Jewish coworker of mine had me read an ICD. So I told him, "That was boring! And stop ruling the world by proxy!"

And he said, "No. And don't forget about the PDR today."

What's with all these acronyms in engineering? Must be because of the...

JOOOOOOOOS!!!

And don't someone call me an anti-Semite now, because I have no idea what a Semite is. It does kinda sound like something I wouldn't like, but I can't be sure.

Oh, if you didn't like this post, send hate mail to either Meryl Yourish, Laurence Simon, or Eugene Volokh who run the blogosphere by proxy.

And one more thing:

JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS!!!!!

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

I love this Ann Coulter doll soooooooo much! If I had a little girl, you can bet she'd be getting this instead of Barbie this year. It would go great with the Reagan Bobblehead doll, the Bicentennial American Coloring Book, & the Bin Laden Dart Board.

The Coulter doll even has 14 different quotes from Ann although I don't know if it has any of my favorites like...

The Great Satan is wearying of this reverse hegemony, in which little pipsqueak nations try to impose their pipsqueak values on us. Aren't we the ones who should be arrogantly oppressing countries that unaccountably do not have the death penalty? -- Ann Coulter

"Gore said foreigners are not worried about 'what the terrorist networks are going to do, but about what we're going to do.' Good. They should be worried. They hate us? We hate them. Americans don't want to make Islamic fanatics love us. We want to make them die. There's nothing like horrendous physical pain to quell anger. Japanese Kamikazes pilots hated us once, too. A couple of well-aimed nuclear weapons got their attention. Now they are gentle little lambs." -- Ann Coulter

Ah, I can't wait for her next book!

To get a better idea of which states will be crucial in the 2004 presidential election, I decided to see how the states voted in the last 4 elections. "R" means the state went Republican and "D" means it went for the Democrats.

Now once I finished that, I decided to break things down a bit further by using the past performance of each state to anticipate which way they're going to go in 2004. The number of electoral votes each state had in 2000 is listed in parentheses...

Republican Gimmie (Won 4 Straight & Cracked 55% In 2000): Alabama (9), Alaska (3), Idaho (4), Indiana (12), Kansas (6), Mississippi (7), Nebraska (5), North Carolina (14) North Dakota (3), Oklahoma (8), South Carolina (8), South Dakota (3), Texas (32) Wyoming (3), Utah (5) -- 122

Lean Republican (Won at least 3 out of last 4 including 2000): -- Arizona (8), Colorado (8), Florida (25), Georgia (13), Montana (3), Virginia (13) -- 70

Toss-Ups: -- Arkansas (6) Kentucky (8), Louisiana (9), Missouri (11), Nevada (4), New Hampshire (4), Ohio (21), Tennessee (11), West Virginia (5) -- 79

Lean Democratic (Won 3 out of last 4 including 2000): -- California (54), Connecticut (8), Delaware (3), Illinois (22), Iowa (7), Maine (4), Maryland (10), Michigan (18), Minnesota (10), New Jersey (15), New Mexico (5), Oregon (7), Pennsylvania (23), Vermont (3), Washington (11), Wisconsin (11) -- 211

Democratic Gimmie (Won 4 Straight & Cracked 55% In 2000): -- District of Columbia (3), Hawaii (4), Massachusetts (12), New York (33), Rhode Island (4) -- 56

Now at first glance, it would appear that the Democrats have the advantage. After all, the Republicans have to take all of their gimmies, GOP leaning states & the toss-ups to beat the Democrats whereas the Democrats simply have to take all of the states they should win anyway and 1 toss-up state to pull it out. However, because Bush is going to have a monstrous money advantage over the Democratic candidate, he'll be able to dogfight it out in every state that's close while the Democrats may have some tough decisons to make as to where to spend their dollars. Furthermore, Bush should be MUCH STRONGER than he was in 2000 and no Democratic candidate in the race currently is expected to be as a tough a challenge as Gore was in 2000. It'll be interesting to see how the polling numbers look in the key states after the Democrats select a candidate...