"...Susan Block, a California sex therapist who hosts a syndicated radio show and HBO's "Radio Sex TV," wrote an April 15 column titled "The Rape of Iraq" for the antiwar Web site Counterpunch (www.counterpunch.org).

For her part, Miss Block says she is horrified and tells the Globe she never meant her charge of an American "rape" of Iraq to be taken literally: "I am appalled to be misquoted and even more appalled that the story inspired someone to such violence."

As the "Inside the Beltway" column I just quoted from mentioned, Susan Block DID NOT actually claim US soldiers were actually raping Iraqi women. However, I want you take a look at the opening of her column "The Rape of Iraq"...

"The supreme victory for the rapist is proof that his victim "enjoyed" it. Though he may force his way into her property, demolish her home, murder her loved ones, pillage her belongings, though he may terrify and humiliate her, beat and batter her, break her bones and tear her flesh, spill her blood, wound her organs and lay waste to her very soul, if, in the midst of the rape, between tears and shrieks of agony, if his victim should, for a moment, for some reason, any reason, if she should smile, or, better yet, orgasm, the rapist is redeemed; he is even (in his mind) heroic.

This is why, when the Anglo-American rape of Iraq began, we so desperately searched the Iraqi faces on our televisions for a smile. And that is why, when after three weeks of horrendous carnage, we finally got more than three Iraqis in one place to smile at our handsome invading army and help them to topple a statue of our mutual accursed enemy, we declared the war to be, virtually, over."

Now after reading that, I have to ask; Why is she "appalled that the story inspired someone to such violence"? I mean, she is morally comparing our invasion of Iraq in the most graphic of terms to a rape, right? Well, if let's say you happened to be walking through a park and you saw a rapist and his accomplices sexually assaulting a young girl, would you feel bad about pulling out a gun, ordering them away from the girl, and blowing one of them away if they refused? Sure, you might not feel good about taking a human life, but would it be wrong? No way, it would be the right thing, the moral thing to do in that situation. So again, given that Susan Block seems to view what we're doing in Iraq as the moral equivalent to rape, why is she "appalled that the story inspired someone to such violence"?

The people who toss around this sort of rhetoric, who compare Bush to Hitler, who claim we're no longer a Democracy, who say America wants to rule the world, and who allege that we're ravishing Iraq for empire, oil, and Haliburton should really understand that their words, albeit indirectly, may end up producing a bodycount if people take their arguments to their logical conclusions. I'm not suggesting in any way, shape of form, that people like Susan Block shouldn't be free to level their criticism, but I am saying that they should be a lot more cautious about tossing off this sort of incendiary rhetoric.

I sometimes hear the question, "Why are you a Democrat?" and frankly, I have to laugh. Laugh and laugh, because perhaps this person may tire of my laughing, and he will eventually wander off. Sometimes I ponder seriously when I hear this question, because I'll look around and around and there's nobody there asking the question. Why am I a Democrat?

I am a Democrat because I believe everyone deserves a chance. And if necessary, a second chance. And if, by the eighth or ninth chance, this guy needs another chance, I mean, come on. This guy is due.

I am a Democrat because I believe in helping those in need. All of us, you and I, have an obligation to those less fortunate. You go first, okay? I'm a little short this week. (Cont)

I just wanted to let all of you know that like Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh, I have a birthday coming up on Monday. So Richard Mellon Scaife, if you're out there and were just waiting for an opportune time to give me $60,000 so I can go full time on RWN for a couple of years, this is the time to act!!!

As far as the rest of you go, I don't want to say that you're a Noam Chomsky lovin', commie sympathizer who probably wants to go live in a commune in France, but I'm pretty sure that people like that won't be heading over to the support section and chipping in any money or buying me any gifts. So draw your own conclusions...

When I heard that Wesley Clark said this...

"If I'd been president, I would have had Osama bin Laden by this time."

...I chalked it up to mere arrogance. But, after this...

"Asked whether the current administration is doing enough to keep the country secure, Clark said he would increase homeland security efforts.

"I think the two greatest lies that have been told in the last three years are: You couldn't have prevented 9/11 and there's another one that's bound to happen."

...I don't believe you can just call this conceit. Anyone who actually believes that they can guarantee that there isn't going to be another 9/11 if they're elected President could better be decribed as...

Megalomaniacal

1) A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence.

2) An obsession with grandiose or extravagant things or actions

Now I think I have a good idea of why Clark was so disliked in the military.

A personal phone call from Al Gore inspired Elecia Battle to come clean and drop her claim to the $162 million Mega Million jackpot which she previously claimed to have won.

"Mr. Gore called and just told me I should give it up," Mrs. Battle said. "Even though I deserved the $162 million, and in my mind I had really won it, he said 'sometimes life's not fair'. He really spoke from the heart. He felt my pain."

Mr. Gore, an itinerant college professor, said, "My heart ached with empathy when I saw Mrs. Battle's futile effort to get something that never really belonged to her."

"I don't know why I identified with her struggle," said Mr. Gore. "I'm just a sensitive person."

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

I haven't done an edition of ACPOTI (Anyone can post on the internet) in quite a while. But, how could I ignore someone ranting about death machines in broken english? If you're entertained by reading really kooky web scribblings -- and I am -- this sort of thing is just too good to pass up...

"This is 100,000 Hong Kong send to the world people emails.

3. Murder Hong Kong people ----- terrorists is the Hong Kong police up to 50, murder many Hong Kong people up to 3 years."

Yowzers!!! Look out for the "devil machine" & the "murder defeat"!!! But, here's the real kicker...a picture that explains it all =D

The little faces are just classic!

As the U.S. slowly draws a conclusion to the Gulf War, Americans gaze in reflection at these periods of war. To help us remember these tales of victory, the White House has teamed up with George Lucas’ Industrial Light and Magic to produce Gulf War I and II on DVD.

This two DVD set is filled with over 37 hours of war-time footage. Each DVD is digitally enhanced with THX sound and includes bonus features such as:

· Easter eggs (Find WMD)

· Commentary from Winners and Losers

· Deleted Scenes

· Interactive tour of a Spider Hole

· The Best of Comical Ali

· The alternate “MOAB” ending

ILM has used it magic to include CGI characters creating a new and more aggressive storyline. Such as newly added scenes “Patton Manhandles the 33rd Parallel” and the moving dialogue from “Abraham Lincoln’s Thanksgiving in Baghdad”. They have also included outtakes such as Wesley Clark almost starting World War III. An added feature will all you to see scenes from the upcoming production of “North Korea, I See You.”

But wait, there is more.

Order now and get the new and improved versions of World War I and II. These two DVDs are chocked full of deleted scenes such as “Battle of Pittsburgh” which was cut from the theatrical release. War scenes have been recreated using CGI effects to include a French army actually fighting with the Allies. Each DVD also includes extraordinary bonus features:

· Easter Eggs (Find Hitler’s Brain)

· Commentary from “Not So Good” kamikaze pilots

· Virtual ride on the Enola Gay

· Interactive “What Would Churchill Do?”

· Commentary from General Wesley Clark “How The Clintons Beat the Germans”

· Alternate ending “Hiroshima, Why Stop There?”

Wow, that is a lot of DVD value you say? We can’t stop. Order today and receive “Vietnam: The Director’s Cut – This Time We Win”.

But wait! There's more. Act now, and we'll send you free of charge The War of 1812: Unplugged That's right. Two Gulf Wars, Two World Wars and the War of 1812 for a low, low price of only $49.95.

But act fast. Because supplies are sure to run out of this once-in-a-lifetime offer.

*Offer not valid in Syria, North Korea and West Virginia.

If you enjoyed this satire by Steve Tanner, you can read more of his work at Broken Newz.

Because this is an important issue, I want to spend a little more time elaborating on what's wrong with Bush's immigration reform and why I think it's such a bad idea.

1) Even if Bush's reform doesn't give illegal aliens amnesty, it still rewards them for breaking our laws. I say that because the illegals who are currently here will get to stay here for at least 3 years, maybe more. During that time, if an illegal alien has a baby, he is an American and that means hey, hey, hey, welcome to early citizenship! Meanwhile, all the people who respected our laws, who waited in line, are being played for suckers.

2) Bush is acting as if we've already finished the job on the borders...uh-uh, not even close. In fact, to claim that we've already secured our borders is laughable, yet that seems to be the line that Bush is taking. I've read Bush's speech, I read numerous articles about this, I've read the White House talking points, and I don't see any serious new steps that Bush plans to take to keep illegals from just waltzing over the border.

3) Combine #1 and #2 and you're going to see MILLIONS of additional illegal immigrants pouring across the borders while we're debating Bush's plan...and why not? If we don't care about our own laws, why should they?

4) Also, Bush's plan calls for giving out citizenship each year to more immigrants...why? Our population is already growing, the numbers of immigrants in the US has already tripled since 1970, and the number of "immigrant households using welfare programs is 30 to 50 percent higher than that of native households". We should be decreasing, not increasing, the number of immigrants we allow into the US each year.

Last but not least, the most frustrating aspect of this is that we are going to crack down on employers who hire illegals...but only after we give work permits to the illegals who are already here. Common sense tells us that not all, but most illegal aliens will go home if they can't get a job here. So, if we're really going to go after businesses that continue to hire illegals and we're going to have a working guest worker program, why don't we just go ahead and institute it without rewarding illegals?

I'll tell you why; because this isn't about doing the right thing or what's good for America, it's about helping Bush in 2004. This reform wil allow Bush to rake in money from business owners who benefit from hiring illegal aliens and Bush is hoping it'll mean more votes from Latinos in 2004. But what about us? What about the majority of Americans and the overwhelming majority of Bush's base? If we don't like, tough luck. What are we going to do? Vote for a Democrat who's sure to come up with something we'll like even less? This is Clintonesque, political gamesmanship at its worst...

Over at About's Political Humor, RWN came up short in the reader voting for the "Most Entertaining Right-Wing News & Commentary" category. However About.com also made their selection and YES, they chose RWN over The Drudge Report, WSJ's Best OF The Web Today, Free Republic, & Newsmax. Mucho thanks to Daniel Kurtzman who runs the website for giving the nod. It's really flattering...

Bill Doty from Broken Newz told me he found this pic on Free Republic. I thought it was pretty amusing and as far as I could tell after taking a closer look at it in PhotoImpact (the graphics program I use), it looks like the picture is genuine...

I just want to comment on a few of the things that jumped out at me as I read the text of Bush's speech about the horrendous new immigration legislation he is going to propose.

To begin with, this line just chaps me...

"As a nation that values immigration and depends on immigration, we should have immigration laws that work and make us proud. Yet today we do not."

No, our immigration laws don't work or make us proud. You know why? Because we don't make an effort to enforce them. It's like telling your kid to clean his room, having him watch TV instead, and then having him look you in the eye and say, "you know the system we're using to get my room cleaned up just isn't working".

Here's more from Bush...

"Many undocumented workers have walked mile after mile, through the heat of the day and the cold of the night. Some have risked their lives in dangerous desert border crossings or entrusted their lives to the brutal rings of heartless human smugglers.

When they're victimized by crimes they're afraid to call the police or seek recourse in the legal system. They are cut off from their families far away, fearing if they leave our country to visit relatives back home they might never be able to return to their jobs."

Yes, that's pretty much what happens to criminals everywhere isn't it? I mean even though a drug dealer works hard and does dangerous work, he can't very well call the police and tell them someone stole his crack can he? Of course, if he were in an honest profession or if the illegal aliens obeyed our laws, they wouldn't have this problem would they?

Then Bush tosses off this whopper about the border...

"First, America must control its borders. Following the attacks of September the 11th, 2001, this duty of the federal government has become even more urgent, and we're fulfilling that duty."

No, the government isn't "fulfilling that duty". We still have illegals, drug dealers, and probably terrorists pouring across our border because the Bush administration even after 9/11, will not commit the necessary resources and manpower to get the job done.

Then this paragraph begs an obvious question...

"Employers must not hire undocumented aliens or temporary workers whose legal status has expired. They must report to the government the temporary workers they hire and who leave their employ so that we can keep track of people in the program and better enforce our immigration laws. There must be strong workplace enforcement with tough penalties for anyone -- for any employer violating these laws."

...and that question is, "why can't we go ahead and do that NOW"? If we did this today, most of the people who are here illegally would go home because they couldn't find jobs. So why do we have to wait until after we've made all these illegals who don't respect our laws into citizens to do this?

Then there's this...

"The citizenship line, however, is too long, and our current limits on legal immigration are too low.

My administration will work with the Congress to increase the annual number of green cards that can lead to citizenship."

Our population is growing as it is and isn't unemployment higher than we'd like as it is? So why do we want to INCREASE the number of people flooding into our country legally?

Last but not least, Bush hit this theme several times...

"Reform must begin by confronting a basic fact of life and economics: Some of the jobs being generated in America's growing economy are jobs American citizens are not filling."

As Mark Krikorian explained in yesterday's National Review, those jobs would be filled by Americans if the illegals weren't driving down wages.

Does that not make perfect sense? I mean people get all up in arms about companies going overseas to get cheap labor, but when the cheap labor COMES HERE, those same people just assume that Americans "won't do those jobs". Sure they will, just not at the same price.

I can only hope that Congress fights Bush all the way on this bill and stops it cold. Giving illegal aliens legal status is only going to cause even more of them to flood across our borders to fill up our prisons, our schools, and leech off of our social services. Our government should be doing everything in its power to stop them instead of rewarding them for breaking our laws.

Here are a few comments from the "Helping Out The Paranoid Lefties Who Think The Right Is Evil" thread that I wanted to address...

"John, I agree with most of your points, except I am for doing away with Social Security. Why should I be forced to pay into a Ponzi scheme?" -- Crusader

"I am absolutely against Social Security and any other type of entitlement that allows for the government to control our money." -- Billary2004

"I am in favor of ridding ourselves of Social Security." -- Greywolf

First off, I do understand where all these people are coming from. In fact, I would probably agree with just about every negative thing you can say about Social Security. The Social Security "trust fund" is really an IOU, it's going to be a real budget buster starting in about a decade or so, I don't think the government should force you to pay into the program, etc, etc, etc. I could go on and on.

That being said, I don't support getting rid of the program for two reasons.

First off, getting rid of Social Security isn't politically possible under any circumstances that I can imagine. In fact, you'd have a better chance of talking the American people into replacing the Lincoln memorial with a giant statue of Benedict Arnold than you would of convincing them to get rid of Social Security. Even if the Supreme Court were to rule the program unconstitutional, a week later the Congress would just push through an Amendment to put the program back in place. So you're just tilting at windmills by talking about ending Social Security.

Secondly, considering how long Social Security has been around and how it has been promoted by the government on both sides of the aisle, it would be wrong to simply get rid of the program at this point. I mean how do you tell tens of millions of people who have been paying into Social Security for 45 years, who have been promised over and over again by the government that they can count on that money for their retirement, that they're getting nothing? Yes, I know that every dime they've paid in has already been spent by the government, but most of them don't know that and wouldn't care if they did. As far as they're concerned, since they paid into the "trust fund" for all these years, they deserve to reap the rewards when they turn 65.

To be honest with you, I don't think that they're wrong.

Wondering what those lovable kooks at the Democratic Underground are talking about today? Well, apparently more than a few of them thinks Bush is going to pull a classic "El Presidente" move. Ya know, cheat as much as possible, hope that you win, but declare yourself dictator if you lose. Here are a few select posts from the DUers (pay special attention to the last one, it's especially deranged)...

Zhade (1000+ posts): "Proposition: The Bush Administration will not give up power in 2004. This hit me again on the way home - my gut instinct is that after stealing an election, consolidating their power, and pursuing extreme policies, the Bushies will not willingly give up power, no matter the results of the presidential election - assuming such an election is actually held.

Yes? No? Thoughts?"

meg (395 posts): "There is no doubt in my mind that they would do whatever it takes to stay in power. They are not going to give up peacefully. They have shown repeatedly that they do not respect the rule of law. They have shown repeatedly that they do not respect the constitution. They have shown repeatedly that they don't mind Americans dieing for their cause"

Hell Hath No Fury (1000+ posts): "They've been waiting for this opportunity since...the late 80s and are in the first stages of their Pax Americana.

Personally, I am thinking some sort of massive attack that is "foiled" by Bush et al right before election time, or a national emergency that pulls the country together or delays elections."

seekthetruth (1000+ posts): "i agree. they are corrupt to the bone and will NEVER relinquish power now. the fix is in."

tom_paine (1000+ posts): "Yep, a little shot of Potassium Chloride behind the ear And we'll have weeks of 24/7 "Dead Soviet Treatment" of Raygun from the Imperial Amerikan Press.

I'm guessing that's what's going to happen."

I'm not going to beat around the bush here; I am an ultra-conservative, radical, right-winger who is far to the right of George Bush. I favored the war in Iraq, I'm for term limits, a Balanced Budget Amendment, and a flat tax. I am implacably opposed to gay marriage, strongly approve of the war on drugs, want to overturn Roe Vs. Wade, and I support the death penalty so much that I'd love nothing better than to personally apply it to Osama Bin Laden with my HS 2000 9 millimeter. All of this is easily verifiable by simply perusing my aptly titled blog, Right Wing News which you're reading right now.

That's why I wanted to let all you left-wingers out there know that you're drinking just a little too much of your own bathwater when it comes to these paranoid conspiracy theories. So just to put your mind at ease, I thought I'd dispell a few of the...ah, I don't want to say kooky here since I'm trying to be diplomatic...so let's just say eccentric...eccentric ideas that many people on the left seem to have about conservatives. So, here are just a few things I want to publicly announce to the world just so I can do my part to help left-wingers calm the heck down...

I...

-- ...have seen nothing that makes me question the patriotism of any of the Democratic candidates for Presidents.

-- ...don't believe being anti-war makes you unpatriotic.

-- ...have zero interest in an American empire.

-- ...am not rich.

-- ...wouldn't support a "war on Islam".

-- ...don't support a draft.

-- ...consider Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell to be annoying.

-- ...believe it would be the duty of every American to oppose, violently if necessary, putting liberals in any sort of camp for their political views.

-- ...think conservative policies are much more beneficial to the poor than liberal policies.

-- ...believe in a colorblind world.

-- ...would not support getting rid of Social Security.

-- ...am convinced the war in Iraq was not about oil, taking revenge for Saddam's attack on Bush 41, making money for Haliburton or any other similarly petty reason.

-- ...disagree with & have criticized President Bush on a number of things including immigration policy, spending, campaign finance reform, steel tariffs, and the farm bill.

-- ...don't hate the Clintons.

-- ...don't believe the US can ever go Fascist, Nazi, or towards any other style of totalitarian government barring some sort of worldwide disaster that completely changes all life on planet earth.

-- ...think we need to take every precaution to make sure that our elections are fair, honest, and above reproach.

-- ...would rather a Republican candidate lose than cheat to win an election.

Do any of you lefties feel any better now knowing that someone with my views thinks this way?

Some people seem to believe that Bush is Hitler, and I think that is wrong. Seems to me it’s time for an enlightening essay.

Why Bush Is Probably Not Hitler
by Frank J.

While it is very hard if not impossible to prove a negative, i.e. Bush not being Hitler, I will do my best because I believe that he is in fact not Hitler. After doing some research, I found out that Hitler was born in Austria in 1889 and died in Germany in 1945 (coincidentally, the same year WWII ended). George W. Bush, on the other hand, was born in America in 1946 and, to my knowledge, is still alive. That by itself seems to be ample evidence that Bush could in no way be Hitler. But there is even more evidence against Bush being Hitler. Hitler was known for having a mustache and being hatless, while Bush is clean-shaven and wears a cowboy hat. That's quite a stark contrast. Also, Bush speaks garbled English, while Hitler spoke angry, angry German. Hitler was also known to kill millions of Jews, while Bush has killed no Jews that I know of. It is rumored that he once punched an Episcopalian, though. And, while Hitler liked to kill oppressed ethnic minorities, Bush want to kill terrorists, who are under-oppressed criminals. Furthermore, Bush has deposed evil dictators, while, presumably, Hitler would want to be buddy-buddy with fellow mean people and probably play golf with them. Also, when Bush has invaded a country, he's established democracy there while Hitler would probably want to do mean evil things to the people and not let them vote. And Hitler starred as a loveable tramp in a number of silent, comedic movies, while Bush has shown little comedic acting ability in his two Barney Christmas movies. Finally, Hitler would kill anyone who spoke out against him while Bush doesn't kill any of his dissenters despite them really, really asking for it.

So who is Hitler? Anyone ever think that maybe he's Howard Dean? I don't know what year Howard Dean was born - as I don't feel like looking it up - but it could be the same year as Hitler! Notice how both "Howard" and "Hitler" start with an 'h'. This could be a subtle hint... from Hitler! Also, if you shaved Hitler mustaches, restyled his hair, and made him a lot angrier, don't you think he'd look a lot like Howard Dean? And I've never heard Howard Dean say not to kill millions of Jews. Furthermore, I'd really like to punch Howard Dean supporters just like I'd like to punch the supporters of Hitler, the Nazis. And what did Howard Dean do during the Vietnam war? He went skiing, just like Hitler. Finally, why was Howard Dean against deposing Saddam Hussein? Maybe it was because he was afraid next they'd be after other evil dictators like himself, Hitler.

In conclusion, the evidence shows that it is very unlikely that George W. Bush is Hitler, but there is ample conjecture that Howard Dean is. Please pass this information to people who it might interest like those at Moveon.org and the Democratic Underground. Thank you.

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

A report by a team of sociologists has found that Jason Alexander, a complete unknown just seven days ago, has started a whole new wave in wedding trends -- everyone will be married to Britney Spears for 15 minutes.

Upon hearing news of the report, men throughout the planet canceled what they were doing and started getting themselves ready for their 15 minutes of marital bliss with the pop superstar.

"She's got me for 3:45 on Wednesday. This way our wedding will be annulled at 4 and I can beat traffic and get home in time for the 76ers' game," said Joe, a construction worker in Philadelphia.

The report could not have come at a better time for the economy.

Barbers, jewelers and tailors -- along with Internet satire writers -- have all reported a tremendous upsurge in business as men prepare for their big quarter hour with the blonde bombshell.

If you enjoyed this satire, make sure to take a look at The Chortler

I think this piece entitled 'Dark passage for America' is well worth reading because it illustrates why the left is so incapable of defending our country from the terrorists who want to kill us. Just look at how hysterical and overwrought Jimmy Breslin's reaction is to our new policy of fingerprinting and photographing visitors to the US from certain countries is and you'll see what I mean.

Breslin's article starts out talking about a Brit named Lisa Virtue...

"Arriving from London at Kennedy Airport last night was Ms. Lisa Virtue on Virgin Airlines flight 003. Certainly, there could be no way to bar her entry on grounds of moral turpitude.

She laughed. Which she shouldn't have, for this was a major part of a new American life in which we have been living without realizing it: the first prints leading to a microchip in your head so they'll know what you're thinking."

This is how many people on the left think folks; today they're fingerprinting foreigners to stop terrorists and tomorrow government goons will be surgically inserting a "Big Brother verison 1.0" microchip into your head at gunpoint.

Now, I suspect that most people, even if they're quite justifiably concerned about the government impinging on our freedoms, would have to consider this a bit over the top. But, I think once you read the next line, you'll understand why Breslin comes across as so paranoid...

"This is all because of this nice, new, clean shaven, Bible quoting, psalm singing Ashcroft and his people. He is a walking symbol of the banality of evil."

Once you come to believe that Republicans aren't just people with good intentions who look at things differently than you do, once you conclude they're eeeeeevvvvvviiiiilllllllll, then of course you're terrified of every security measure. It can't be that this is really about protecting Americans from terrorism, no, because evil people wouldn't care about that. So actually, it's about hurting people, especially liberals. That's the mentality these people have.

Then Breslin goes on to talk about 9/11 and ends with this paragraph,

"I knew after these sirens would come rules. You can't go here, you can't go there. This location is frozen. And it took a while, much longer than I thought it would, but finally last night, here was Ms. Lisa Virtue being fingerprinted and now the whole thing was in front of you: the placing of this beautiful country into a cage."

So there you go, now that we're fingerprinting foreigners -- America is one like big prison camp run by the Bushhitler and that eeeeeevvvvvviiiiilllllllll Ashcroft.

But you know, if there's another terrorist attack, Jimmy Breslin and the people just like him, will be the very first people to complain that Bush should have protected us. Well, you can't have your cake and eat it too. How can you have any credibility if you're going to fight every security measure tooth and nail and then turn around and complain when someone takes advantage of our weak security to pull off another 9/11? You can't, but that won't stop a lot of people on the left from trying it.

Personally, I'm glad that we're fingerprinting and photographing at least some of the foreigners coming into our country. It's a very, small inconvenience that will help keep us safer without infringing on American liberties one whit. As far as I'm concerned, we should have done it a long time ago.

If you thought the enviro-loonies and red tape slinging lefties at the EPA were bad, just wait until you get a load of their ideological soulmates in Britain...

"Edward James, 51, from Westcliff-on-Sea, Essex, bought the half-acre wood overlooking the Crouch estuary near Hockley so that he and a few friends could sit cross-legged and meditate among the trees for about half an hour at a time. However, an objection was lodged with the council. The Essex Wildlife Trust objected because it feared trees were being damaged, including the removal of "old and long-established ivy". A local resident expressed concern because several vehicles were turning up at the site with would-be meditators.

His application for a change of use will be considered by Rochford district council planning committee tonight. Council officers have recommended that it be approved.

Ah, the joy of having to "fill in the same forms that you would need to build a skyscraper" and get PERMISSION from a government council just so you can sit around in the trees with a few of your friends. As ridiculous as that is, James is lucky that he's not in the US or he'd probably have to fight a two year long court battle with the The Essex Wildlife Trust on top of that. Why can't these government toadies and green busybodies just leave people alone?

Thanks to the The Daily Ablution for pointing this one out.

Las Vegas oddsmakers have revised the line on Pete Rose getting admitted to the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame in the wake of his admission that he gambled on baseball during his stint as a team manager.

"It's about even odds now," said an unnamed Vegas bookie. "As a 14-year unrepentant liar, he was 100-to-1, but as an slightly-repentant honest guy, whose book comes out in three days and whose last shot at the Hall of Fame is December 2005, it's a coin toss."

Former MLB Commissioner Fay Vincent said Mr. Rose once told him that he did not bet on baseball because, Mr. Rose claimed he was "not that stupid."

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

Back in November of last year when I was slapping around St. Joseph's professor Paul Ginnetty for treating conservatism like a mental condition, I said this,

"(W)hen Republican winners go to Capitol Hill, Democratic losers have a tendency to explain their side's losses by saying the voters were -- A) Stupid B) Racist C) Anti-Intellectuals D) Have psychological issues -- take your pick."

Well, today in a guest column that the Seattle Post Intelligencer saw fit to publish, we get to hear from someone who chose option A. I'll let condescending lefty Neil Starkman take it from here...

"...It's increasingly obvious, for example, that none of the so-called theories can explain President Bush's popularity, such as it is. Even at this date in his presidency, after all that has happened, the president's popularity hovers at around 50 percent -- an astonishingly high figure, I believe, given the state of people's lives now as opposed to four years ago.

...It's well past time that people confront this issue, no matter who's offended. We are on the way to becoming a nation of imbeciles. I'm certain that a plethora of "George W. Bush" jokes is already being circulated in every capital of the world. We can stop this sapping of our national integrity but we must do it soon, lest the morons become the norm and those of us who use our brains for more than memorizing advertising jingles are ourselves ostracized from society."

So there we are. Left-wing super genius Neil Starkman has explained that the majority of Americans, especially people who support Bush, are a bunch of drooling idiots who have such a minimal grasp of cause and effect that they probably don't even know why their head hurts after they pound their forehead with a hammer.

Isn't it funny how this kind of sentiment keeps popping up on the left? Remember when best-selling leftie author Michael Moore said,

"(Americans) are possibly the dumbest people on the planet ... in thrall to conniving, thieving, smug pr*cks. We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don’t know about anything that’s happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing.”

Then there was Janekat from the The 10 Worst Quotes From The Democratic Underground For 2003 article who opined,

"What we MUST realize in order to win - Americans are stupid and uninformed. This is very important because in order to win we must understand the way the average American thinks. I'm afraid WE have nothing in common with them."

Maybe Michael Moore and company could put together a campaign commercial for 2004. Perhaps something like "Vote for Democrats because they're smarter than you are" or "We know what's best for you better than you know it yourself". That might not be popular, but at least it would be honest and would get across what more than a few people on the left really and truly think about the American people...

Brazilian Judge Julier Sebastiao ruled that Brazil must begin fingerprinting American citizens in response to a new US policy that would fingerprint and photograph all foreigners entering the United States. The new US policy exempts some 27 countries from this security measure, but Brazil is not included in the list.

According to Judge Sebastiao, the new American security policy is "absolutely brutal, an attack on human rights, a violation of human dignity, xenophobic and as bad as the worst horrors sponsored by the Nazis."

Therefore, Judge Sebastiao has ordered a monument to be erected and a memorial service to take place in the city of Sao Paulo in order to honor all Brazilian victims of US fingerprinting during this time of great tragedy. The monument will replace a currently standing monument to honor holocaust victims of World War II.

"It is absolutely appalling to see human rights violations of such proportions coming from the United States," commented 23 year old art student Marcos K. Corverrio from Sao Paulo. He added that, "Even when the Nazis killed millions of Jews, at least they didn’t fingerprint them before they did it."

A group of Brazilian protesters temporarily in the United States, has pleaded with Amnesty International and the United Nations in an open letter to condemn the American policy as "a clear violation of the most basic human rights known to mankind". One spokesman for the group commented, "Today it’s only photographs and fingerprinting. Tomorrow, we’ll probably have to tell them why we’re visiting their country." In the open letter to the two organizations, the group requested that action be taken against the United States, but asked that Brazil’s newly adopted anti-American fingerprinting policy receive immunity from being referred to as a human rights violation since "it is just a retaliatory response that’s absolutely necessary until Americans realize that they are not really as powerful as they think they are."

The group of Brazilian protesters has vowed to fight the barbaric policies of the United States and declared that, "As long as people continue to fight oppression, maybe we can save a few people out there from the horrors of being fingerprinted."

Thanks to RWN reader Bob_Sacamano for sending in this satire.

It seems that the Crocodile Hunter, Steve Irwin, took his kid out with him to feed a croc. Here are the details...

"Crocodile hunter Steve Irwin has defended his decision to hold his baby son while feeding a crocodile, saying it was important to teach kids about danger.

Mr Irwin also earned a reprimand from Queensland's Department of Family Services."

Now while I haven't seen the show yet, it probably went about like this...

Staff Member: I don't know if it's a good idea to take your baby out to feed that croc...

(Hops out of the croc pen) Well, that was a real adventure wasn't it? Make sure to come back next week when I place my baby inbetween an enraged mother hippo and her baby! They really hate that, more than anything! See you next week everybody!

Steve, buddy, here's a little friendly advice...keep your baby out of the croc pens. I'm just trying to help you out here...

For those of you who aren't familiar with them, MoveOn is an prominent, mainstream, leftist group. Just to give you an idea of how influential they are, keep in mind that,

-- They claim to have "2,000,000 online activists".
-- George Soros gave them 5 million dollars.
-- The judges for their ad contest include Michael Moore, Al Franken, Janeane Garofalo, Jessica Lange, Donna Brazile, & James Carville.
-- A victory in the MoveOn.org Primary was the event that sparked Howard Dean's campaign.

All of this is particularly noteworthy because of an ad from a MoveOn contest that they liked so much that they put it on their front page. The ad, which you can see here, compares Bush to Hitler. That, in of itself, is despicable and worthy of condemnation.

But to truly appreciate how out of touch MoveOn and their allies on the left have gotten, you have only to consider why they believe Bush to be like Hitler. Here is the text of the commercial,

Graphic: Pictures Of Hitler
Voice: (Speaking In German)
Text: We have taken new measures to protect our homeland,

Text: SOUND FAMILIAR?
Voice: Cheering German Crowd

So what do we have here that makes Bush "another Hitler"? We see a reference to protecting the homeland, a mention of God, a "strike at al-Qaida," and a "strike at Saddam," that's it. Who in their right mind thinks, "OMG, Bush is a Christian who wants to defend us from terrorists and take on Saddam and Al-Qaida....he's obviously ANOTHER HITLER!!!" It just boggles the mind...