As I perused an article called "Evangelicals frustrated by Bush" at the Washington Times, I just could not believe what I was reading. Here are few quotes to give you a feel for the piece...

"Their list of grievances is long, but right now social conservatives are mad over what many consider the president's failure to strongly condemn illegal homosexual "marriages" being performed in San Francisco under the authority of Mayor Gavin Newsom.

...Religious conservatives helped Ronald Reagan win the presidency in the 1980s and helped Republicans retake the House and Senate in 1994, but complain that they have little to show for their loyalty to the GOP.

..."I'm not blaming the president, but religious conservatives have been doing politics for 25 years and, on every front, are worse off on things they care about," said Gary Bauer, president of American Values. "The gay rights movement is more powerful, the culture is more decadent, the life of not one baby has been saved, porn is in the living room, and you can't watch the Super Bowl without your hand on the off switch."

...Conservative Christian concerns with White House leadership extend beyond homosexuality, pornography and abortion to issues of art, education and law.

Sadie Fields, a Bush supporter and Christian Coalition activist, says she's heard grumbles that Mr. Bush stood aside while the man he nominated for a federal appeals court appointment, Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor, prosecuted that state's popular chief justice, Roy Moore. Mr. Moore was forced from office after defying a federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of Alabama's State Judicial Building.

...Mr. Bauer, a former Reagan White House adviser who was briefly a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination four years ago, said pro-life voters were dismayed by Mr. Bush's repeated statements during the 2000 campaign that he would not make abortion a "litmus test" issue for judicial appointees. Since Mr. Bush took office, Mr. Bauer said, many of the same voters were disappointed by Mr. Bush's ineffectiveness in pushing conservative bench nominees past liberal Democrats in the Senate."

Now, I've delivered rhetorical shots to Bush's solar plexus on more than a few issues and I can certainly understand why any conservative would be unhappy with much of his domestic agenda. However, the complaints in this article are for the most part, ridiculous.

The Bush administration has been VERY friendly to the Evangelical agenda. Bush is a Christian who is not afraid to openly talk about his faith, Bush tried to get his Faith Based Initiative passed, he signed a ban on partial birth abortion, W. is going to support a Constitutional Amendment to block gay marriage, he has nominated plenty of conservative, pro-life judges, Bush has been the strongest supporter of Israel in our history, and the FCC has been all over the Super Bowl half-time show.

I just question how any social conservative or Evangelical can look at that record and go, "Gee, why isn't Bush supporting us?" Pushing to get as much of your agenda made into law is understandable, but you also have to bow to political realities and understand that you can't always get everything you want.

Also, since I'm on this subject, let me clear something up about Roy Moore. This probably isn't going to sit well with some of you, but he isn't a hero. To the contrary, I think people have every reason to distrust his motives. I say that because that whole fight over the 10 Commandments monument he was involved in was nothing but manipulative grandstanding. He slapped that monument up in the middle of the night for no other reason than to start a fight and then he played to the public in order to set himself up for a future run at public office. I can say with 100% confidence that the way the Supreme Court currently interprets the First Amendment is wrong, but just because Moore hung his hat on that issue doesn't make him worth fawning over given the circumstances.

Chris Muir from Day By Day thwacks John Kerry for insulting the National Guard....

Day by Day should be running in the comics section of every paper in America as far as I'm concerned. Muir's strip is actually current and entertaining unlike Pogo, Snuffy Smith, Blondie and all those other lame comics that were stale before I was even born and yet somehow seem to keep going and going and going like some sort of undead energizer bunny from hell...

Pity the poor student who happens to be studying "international negotiation and diplomacy at the Fletcher School at Tufts University" because he very well might have the misfortune of being taught by utopian dunderhead Adil Najam. Displaying a level of childlike naivete which is entirely unbecoming in any adult, particularly a professor, Mr. Najam wrote an op/ed for USA Today entitled Get rid of all nuclear arms. Here is an excerpt...

"Perhaps the fathers of our own atom bomb - Robert Oppenheimer and his colleagues from the Manhattan Project - were correct in believing that the only real way of dealing with nuclear proliferation is to ban nuclear weapons altogether. Everywhere.

International Atomic Energy Agency head Mohamed ElBaradei understands this reality. He recently wrote: "We must abandon the unworkable notion that it is morally reprehensible for some countries to pursue weapons of mass destruction yet morally acceptable for others to rely on them and indeed to continue to refine their capacities and postulate plans for their use."

We must insist on a nuclear-free world. We must make a sincere commitment to it at home and demand it abroad. Rather than better mousetraps for proliferating nations, we need an approach to eliminate nuclear weapons. Some may argue this is unrealistic. But no more so than the misguided, even naive, hope that a feel-good Band-Aid called PSI will make the world a safer place."

Now, you're probably thinking, "Wow, I bet Hawkins is about to say this guy is a fatuous pinhead for writing this piece and then say that USA Today must be run by a bunch of braindead guttersnipes since they ran it!" Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying....but let's be honest, you weren't "probably thinking" that I was going to say that. I mean calling someone a "fatuous pinhead" or a "braindead guttersnipe" -- when was the last time you heard that in a casual conversation? So there's no way that you guessed I was going to say that -- who do you think you're kidding?

In any case, simply saying we should "Get rid of all nuclear arms" is a lot like saying "Zhang Ziyi should be giving me a back rub right now". It's a nice idea, but there's no practical way to make it happen.

So am I saying we'll never be rid of nukes? No, but history tells us that there are only two reasons that the human race will stop using particular weapons; either a defense is devised that makes that weapon ineffective or someone comes up with something better. If nukes ever do become obsolete, let's hope the former reason, not the latter, is why.

Already benefiting from the “Atkins” effect, beef sales have increased 867% in the past three months, according to industry analysts who say that the amazing increase is directly attributable to the success of the “Hitler Was a Vegetarian” ad campaign funded by the American Beef Council.

“Yeah, Hitler has been real good for beef,” says Mel Saatchi, Creative Director of ad giant Saatchi & Saatchi, the creators of the campaign. “Images of Hitler and hordes of SS and brownshirts eating carrots and tofu have successfully branded in the public’s mind the idea of beef as the food of freedom. From now on when you think vegetarian, you think genocidal maniac. John Wayne equals beef. Adolf Hitler equals radish. Slam dunk.”

In related news, a spokesperson for the National Bourbon Board said yesterday that his organization will unveil its “Benedict Arnold Drank Milk” ad campaign on June 1st.

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

I've never been a huge Lennon fan, but I was interested to find out that Stephen King killed him. Apparently Nixon and Ronald Reagan were accessories as well...or so says the author Steve Lightfoot who wants you to know, the stories you may have heard about him aren't true!

"Before I begin, you should know that everything the media has ever said about me is a lie. I was never a stalker of Stephen King, was never barred from visiting Bangor, Maine, was not present at times and dates alleged by King in some incidents I've heard about and I was completely set up by King and the corrupt City of Santa Cruz and chief Stephen Belcher when I was arrested, and put on the national news including two showings on American Journal, for showing up at a booksigning with a sign that read;

"STEPHEN KING IS A MURDERER; IT'S TRUE OR HE'D SUE "

He also has some analysis of 9/11 which he based on the old "folding dollar shows you 9/11 trick" and bizarre "A Beautiful Mind" style newspaper clippings that "prove" that Reagan was involved in Lennon's murder as well.

Yes, "anyone can post on the internet," but this guy strikes me as particularly nuts....

Last week, Ann Coulter wrote an excellent column which revealed that Max Cleland did not lose his limbs in combat. Instead, Cleland's injuries were sustained in a non-combat situation when he picked up a grenade while he was on his way to drink beer with friends.

Well, after that, left-wingers lined up around the block to rip Coulter and call her a liar. TBogg called her a "Lying B*tch". Arthur Silber compared her column to "the usual lies about Kerry" and said, "this is beneath contempt, and beyond forgiveness". Crooked Timber excoriates Mark Steyn for even daring to use her as a source on this issue. Tim Dunlop over at "The Road To Surfdom" also mocked the idea of Steyn using Coulter as a source. In her latest column, Coulter also notes that, "Molly Ivins called my column "error-ridden," and Al Hunt called it a "lie." Joe Klein said I was the reason liberals were being hysterical about George Bush's National Guard service."

Just one problem though -- Coulter's column was as per usual, dead-on accurate and she had the quotes to prove it...

"(Cleland) told the pilot he was going to stay awhile. Maybe have a few beers with friends. ... Then Cleland looked down and saw a grenade. Where'd that come from? He walked toward it, bent down, and crossed the line between before and after." (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Dec. 5, 1999)

"[Cleland] didn't step on a land mine. He wasn't wounded in a firefight. He couldn't blame the Viet Cong or friendly fire. The Silver Star and Bronze Star medals he received only embarrassed him. He was no hero. He blew himself up." (Baltimore Sun, Oct. 24, 1999)

"Cleland was no war hero, but his sacrifice was great. ... Democratic Senate candidate Max Cleland is a victim of war, not a casualty of combat. He lost three limbs on a long-forgotten hill near Khe Sanh because of some American's mistake ..." (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Sept. 29, 1996)"

It's also worth noting that while Cleland earned a silver star, according to Cleland himself, he didn't deserve it. After being clued in by an email from Mark Steyn to a Crooked Timber reader, I managed to find the following...

"(In) Mr. Cleland's autobiography, Strong at the Broken Places (1986 edition), in which he writes on Page 87 regarding his having been awarded the Soldier's Medal "for allegedly shielding my men from the grenade blast and the Silver Star for allegedly coming to the aid of wounded troops..."

"There were no heroics on which to base the Soldier's Medal. And it had been my men who took care of the wounded during the rocket attack, not me. Some compassionate military men had obviously recommended me for the Silver Star, but I didn't deserve it."

And later, on Page 89: "I was not entitled to the Purple Heart either, since I was not wounded by enemy action."

Now, I don't bring all this up to denigrate Max Cleland. To the contrary, I have a lot of respect for anyone who serves in our military. Above and beyond that, Cleland deserves credit for volunteering to go to Vietnam and for his injuries in service to our country.

However, there are two points worth making here.

One, Coulter was right in her original column when she said, "There is more than a whiff of dishonesty in how Cleland is presented to the American people". The reason the Democrats have been keeping Cleland front and center in the Kerry campaign, are using him as the point man to attack Bush on the bogus AWOL charges, and keep lying about Cleland's patriotism being challenged, is because most Americans incorrectly have the impression that Cleland sustained his injuries in combat. If the average person on the street knew what actually happened to Cleland, the Dems wouldn't be trying to use him as the face of the party on military issues. People on the left will hate to admit that because it makes them sound cynical & dishonest, but deep in their bleeding hearts they know it's the truth.

Secondly, there are a lot of people on the left who should publicly set the record straight and admit that they were wrong about this issue and Ann Coulter was right. However, I'd advise you not to hold your breath waiting for them to do the right thing...

On the heels of a surprisingly good showing in yesterday's Wisconsin primary, people across the country are now beginning to ask “who is John Edwards?” -- a question also being raised by John Edwards himself.

Hence, the candidate has taken a leading role in trying to determine where he came from and what exactly he stands for.

“Apparently, from what I have been able to dig up so far, I am some guy from North Carolina with pretty good hair and a nice smile who had nothing better to do than tour Iowa for a year,” Edwards guesses.

“As I understand it, I was in favor of the Iraq invasion when it seemed like a good idea and now I am definitely opposed to it until it turns into a good idea again,” he thinks.

From what he was been able to uncover about himself Edwards senses that he might be the guy the Democrats need to take back the White House.

“Whatever my positions on the economy, education and the environment might be, I just have this gut feeling that they are way better than John Kerry's,” Edwards speculated.

If you enjoyed this satire by the Chortler, you can read more of their work by clicking here.

Ironically, most of the triangulation Bush has done in an attempt to steal Democratic issues and pull in independent voters seems to have backfired on him. He spent money like a Democrat and conservatives became furious with him. He proposed an illegal alien friendly immigration plan and not only did he infuriate the base, there still doesn't seem to be any evidence that it has helped him with Hispanics. His massive education bill that he put together with Ted Kennedy? Despite ridiculously high spending increases, all we're hearing is that it's "underfunded". Even the prescription medicare bill has been big failure. Not only did it inspire lots of conservatives to compare Bush to LBJ, the Washington Times reports that "A Gallup survey found that public disapproval of Mr. Bush's handling of health care has increased 13 percentage points since last year."

I have come to believe that the assumption made by a lot of people, myself included, that Bush's triangulation is good politics, but bad for the country, is half wrong. In actuality, Bush's triangulation is not only bad for the country, it doesn't seem to be helping him politically either. I now think that Bush's popularity in 2002 and early 2003 was largely due to tax cuts and a war bounce, not the issues he triangulated on.

Furthermore, I believe the reason triangulation worked so well for Clinton and has largely failed for Bush, is because the country is more conservative than liberal. So when Clinton triangulated on issues like welfare reform and NAFTA, it worked great for him because the country leans to the right. But, now that Bush is moving to the left to triangulate, it's not working for him because he's going against the conservative grain of the country.

On top of that, conservatives tend to be much more critical of their own candidates when they disagree with them than liberals do, as Trent Lott found out to his dismay. So when Bush moves to left, it generates a lot more anger and public dissent on the right than Clinton's occasional moves to the right ever did among liberals.

So if what I'm saying here is the case -- and I think the polls support my position -- isn't it time for Bush to stop trying to move to the left so much in an effort to get elected?

-- We keep hearing that because America is "divided" and that there isn't going to be much of a swing vote this year. Yep, everybody has basically already made up their mind so there's no point in even trying to bring those undecided voters in. That's complete bupkis folks. Just take a look at these Rasmussen poll numbers...

Feb 15, 2004: John Kerry 48% -- George Bush 44%
Jan 19, 2004: George Bush 50% -- John Kerry 35%

Anybody still think there isn't a large, fluid, swing vote out there?

-- Just a little note about John Kerry. What does he have going for him other than the fact that he's not Wesley Clark or Howard Dean? Kerry isn't charismatic, he's not particularly electable, he doesn't seem to be firing up the base, and he didn't even do a great job of raising money compared to Dean. One day down the line I suspect, probably not too long after the Bush campaign actually starts spending advertising money, the Democrats are going to be asking themselves how they started with a huge field of candidates and ended up with a nasty liberal version of Bob Dole as their nominee.

-- I love all the faux outrage about the pic of Kerry and Fonda standing together that I suggested was a fake a week ago. Here's a quote from an article in the Daily Telegraph that'll give you an idea of what I'm talking about...

"An attempt to smear John Kerry, the Massachusetts senator and Democratic frontrunner, by doctoring a picture to show him next to the radical actress Jane Fonda was condemned by the photographer yesterday as a new low in political sleaze."

Wow, you mean there are fake pics on the internet? Who would have ever suspected? This is really a new low isn't it?

-- One piece of preemptive advice for the President; stay out of Haiti. It's not part of the war on terrorism, it's not in our national interest to go there, and it's not our problem. If the "international community" wants to help out, great, give them moral support. If not, so be it. Haiti was a mess a decade ago, it's a mess today, it's going to be a mess a decade from now, and it's not our responsibility to fix it.

We're still being treated by the Democrats to a lot of phony outrage about a commercial that was run in the 2002 Georgia Senate race. Here's a description of the ad from the Cleland friendly Veterans For Peace website....

"It opened with pictures of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. "As America faces terrorists and extremist dictators," said a narrator, "Max Cleland runs television ads claiming he has the courage to lead. He says he supports President Bush at every opportunity, but that's not the truth. Since July, Max Cleland voted against President Bush's vital homeland security efforts 11 times!"

That ad was denounced at the time by RINOs like Chuck Hagel and John McCain and the Democrats are still carping about it today. But, while you'll often hear that ad called "vicious" or an "attack on Cleland's patriotism," the real problem the Dems had with it was that it was effective.

Chambliss didn't say Cleland supported Saddam or Bin Laden, he was just pointing out that Cleland was making life easier for them. You can agree or disagree with that point, but I don't think it's the least bit unfair to make it. To the contrary, given the "lies, d@mned lies, and statistics" that are often repeated as fact in campaign commercials, I'd say that ad was better than most of them you'll see in a Senate race.

Which brings me to the 2004 presidential election. There would be nothing with running a campaign commercial like this one suggested by Jonah Goldberg, that portrays Al-Qaeda as being thrilled with the idea of a John Kerry presidency. Given the ruthless way that the Bush administration has hunted down Al-Qaeda, the best thing that could ever happen for Bin Laden & company would be for an internationalist liberal who views terrorism as a law enforcement matter to become President. So why would be "vicious" to note the obvious truth?

Furthermore, despite voting for the war, John Kerry bent over backwards in the Democratic primaries to make it clear he didn't think we should have gone to war in Iraq. So what would be wrong with putting Saddam's pic in a campaign commercial, talking about the ricin, terrorist ties, and mass graves, while pointing out that if John Kerry had his way, Saddam would still be in power? Nothing.

Last but not least, the Democrats have been trying to find a way to blame Bush for 9/11 since 2002 and they've been complaining that W. hasn't gotten Bin Laden (don't be surprised to see Dem campaign commercials hitting those themes this year either). So there's certainly nothing wrong with nailing Kerry on Saddam and/or Osama in a campaign commercial if it works with the focus groups.

Jonah Goldberg put out a suggested campaign ad for President Bush, and I was thinking that whatever Goldberg can do, I can do better. Here are my own ad suggestions (based on the assumption that John Kerry is the nominee).

* * * *

This one will settle all the issues about President Bush's military service.

Black and white picture of John Kerry with ominous sounding music.

ANNOUNCER: Kerry likes to tout his military record in Vietnam and belittle Bush's National Guard Service in Alabama but...

Picture of evacuation of Saigon.

ANNOUNCER: Fact: We lost in Vietnam, and that country is now ruled by Communists.

Picture of happy looking southerners.

ANNOUNCER: Fact: Alabama was protected during the seventies and now has a stable - albeit crude - democracy.

Fade to black.

GRAPHIC: Re-Elect George Bush - He fights battles we can win

* * * *

This ad should put the special interest money issue in perspective.

Black and white picture of John Kerry with ominous sounding music.

ANNOUNCER: Kerry likes to pretend he cares about regular people, when in fact he gets tons of money from special interests.

Color picture of a smiling George Bush.

ANNOUNCER: And, though it is true that President Bush gets even more money, he get so much that in fact odds are that you, watching this now, are one of those special interest money donators.

Cut to President Bush in the Oval Office.

BUSH: I would just like to thank you for the money, and I promise to spend it on great ads like this.

Fade to black.

GRAPHIC: Re-Elect George Bush - Vote for the man you donated to

Paid for by the Bush Reelection Campaign and you.

* * * *

This one is kind of a cheap shot, but, hey, that's politics for you.

Video of the liberation of Iraq.

ANNOUNCER: Liberals like to say that President Bush didn't find any WMD's.

Cut to President Bush in the Oval Office.

BUSH: But it's not true. I have found WMD's, and – THEY’RE IN JOHN KERRY’S FACE! BOO-YEAH!

Picture of John Kerry.

ANNOUNCER: That's right. John Kerry is a sissy-boy who uses botox injections so he can better admire himself in the mirror.

Fade to black.

GRAPHIC: Re-Elect George Bush - Don't vote for a sissy-boy

* * * *

This one will have a high production cost, but it should play well with the MTV crowd... who I don't really want voting. Anyway, this one is kick@ss!

Scene: Debate between Bush and an actor playing Kerry.

KERRY: I think the American people really are focused on trivial, inane issues, and that's what I plan to make them my priority as president.

Suddenly a throwing star barely misses Kerry's head and ninjas slide down to the stage from ropes.

AUDIENCE: Oh no! Ninjas!

Kerry ducks behind his podium.

KERRY: Someone protect my important looking hair!

MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Ninjas are trying to destroy democracy!

Cut to close up of Bush who squints his eyes menacingly.

BUSH: Not while I'm president.

Bush defeats all the ninjas in a well-choreographed kung fu fight.

BUSH: Nothing a real president can't handle.

AUDIENCE: On no! Terrorists!

Cut to long shot showing terrorists with AK-47's surrounding the stage.

HEAD TERRORIST: We are here to terrorize Americans for nonsensical reasons involving Allah and Jews and such.

KERRY (still ducking behind podium): This wasn't agreed to in the debate format!

BUSH: There are too many for me to handle myself!

A grenade lands near the terrorists’ feet and explodes. Arnold Schwarzenegger burst into the fray firing an M-60.

AUDIENCE: It's California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger!

ARNOLD: Terrorists are veak and puny! I crush them! I am Ah-nuld!

Bush pulls out a Colt .45, and he and Arnold kill all the terrorists.

AUDIENCE: Yay! Bush and the Republicans have saved us from ninjas and terrorists!

Kerry finally gets up from behind his podium.

KERRY: Now can we stop talking about terrorism and get back to the trivial and petty issues that are at hand?

ARNOLD: You are veak and puny!

Arnold picks up Kerry and throws him through the back wall.

Bush poses before Arnold.

BUSH: If you want a president who knows how to work with federal and local government to kill ninjas and terrorists, make sure to vote for me in November. Right, Governor?

ARNOLD: Dah!

* * * *

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

To put together the latest edition of ACPOTI (anyone can post on the internet), I perused the Jihaad section of Islamic Awakening Discussion Board and I have to tell ya, if there aren't intelligence agencies monitoring that place, they should be.

I say that because apparently somebody forgot to tell these guys that Islam is a "religion of peace". To the contrary, there seem to be more than a few Osama Bin Laden loving militants on this board who are under the impression that,

"Jihad is necessary for the spread of Islam, and our offensive attacks aginst the polytheists, disbelievers, and infidels will testify to the superiority of the Islamic creed."

That's right, Islamo-Fascism is on the march and RWN is there! (Cont)

Hat tip to the overlord for sending me this link.

Everywhere you turn lately, it seems there's someone else worried about outsourcing. But look folks, there is nothing to be worried about.

To begin, it's not that big of a phenomenon. "Forrester Research predicts that 3.3 million white-collar jobs will be lost to offshoring by 2015."

The loss of 3.3 million jobs over 15 years in a nation of our size isn't exactly something that should prompt people to grab their shotguns & a 6 month supply of beans before they head to the fall-out shelters. Especially since over the long haul, outsourcing will create more jobs in the United States than it costs us.

Now, a lot of people don't buy into that because they can "see" the jobs that were lost, but there is no way to specifically point to the jobs that were created. But, you have to consider a number of factors including...

-- Those people overseas getting those 3.3 million jobs will spend some of the money they receive on American products which will create jobs back in the states.

-- The money saved by the companies with outsourcing may be used either to hire people in the states or make upgrades in equipment that will make the company more competitive. That will eventually lead to increase in employment.

-- Outsourcing may enable the company to produce a cheaper product which will allow consumers to spend more money on that product or on other goods which will lead to job gains.

-- Most importantly, being able to produce a product more cheaply is a great advantage in the global marketplace. And the more competitive a company is, the greater likelihood it will thrive, profit, and grow -- which means the company will hire more workers. On the other hand, a company that can't be competitive will go out of business, which means it won't be employing anyone.

Here's the bottom line; the jobs that Americans do change over time. Some of them become obsolete, some of them move overseas, some of them are even being done here in the US by illegals. But as certain jobs disappear, they're replaced, usually by better paying jobs. You can tell that by looking at the Per Capita Personal Income (in current dollars), which has continued to grow, particularly in the last 25 years or so. So don't sweat outsourcing, it's nothing to be concerned about. To the contrary, it's actually a net plus for the economy...

It was an interesting scene when Judge Harry Rapkin was cornered by a reporter and camera crew outside his beautiful home in his upscale neighborhood. Rapkin was the last judge to handle the case of that miscreant Joseph P. Smith, the man who murdered 11-year-old Carlie Brucia on Super Bowl Sunday. As I watched the judge struggle for words and petulantly lash out at Bill O'Reilly with all the eloquence of a grade-schooler, something my brother once said occurred to me: "It's easy to be idealistic when you don't have to live with your ideals." (Cont)

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom today declared that homosexuals applying for so-called marriage licenses at City Hall can pay the application fee with Monopoly money.

"For too long now," said Mayor Newsom, "Monopoly money, and other counterfeit bills, have been treated as second-class currency. We are no longer captives to antiquated values based on majority opinions and legislation. Since I have power to override state and federal laws, I declare that Monopoly money is legal tender."

A local jeweler in San Francisco immediately began advertising that his shop would also accept Monopoly money for his "full line of genuine pyrite wedding rings."

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

Over in the forums of the ultra-leftist British rag the Guardian, they're talking about the most dangerous threat to the world today. Is it terrorism, dictators w/ WMD, Communism -- super bugs, global warming, asteroids -- super intelligent machines, invaders from Mars, Mecha Streisand? Oh no, it's CONSERVATIVES.

Here are some of the British nutters over at the Guardian at their worst in today's edition of ACPOTI (anyone can post on the internet)....

Thread Title: The Right Wing in America -- a threat to civilisation?

PNACman: "Anti intellectual, aggressively certain of their superiority, devoid of morality, masters in the art of propaganda and profoundly insecure. These sociopathic bullies are gaining control of America.

Every society has them but they come together under one banner, they feed on each other’s evil, gain political power and, then become a serious threat to civilisation itself.

What can be done?

(Continued) The last time a powerful country fell under the spell of fascism it lead to the Holocaust and a world war. Now it is happening in a country infinitely more powerful than Germany. They consequences, therefore, could be infintely greater.

If anyone is in any doubt that this is a very real threat look at the tactics and behaviour of this type of individual on this forum. Look at their resoponse to this thread -- if they are stupid enough not to ignore it -- they will use any tactic to divert attention from the truth.

It conforms precisely to the stereotype of the fascist bully and even a cursory look at American politics reveals that they really have a lock grip on power in that country. The example of Nazi Germany and Hitler shows very clearly where this leads.

But they have not yet completely closed the door on democratic opposition so there is still a chance to deal with this menace.

But the question is how? Quite clearly the political opposition in America are impotent to rise to the challenge. So where do we go from here?"

macthebrief: "PNACman

I'm not so sure it is correct to say that the "last" time it happened was HitlerZeit.

I think the last time (we in the west at least) saw this form of ideological paranoia was during the various European inquisitions.

Interestingly, the effects of them all were minimal (apart from the poor tortured or burned people ...... and there is an analogy!) and we are what we are indirectly because of them.

Never underestimate the ability of the great unwashed to agree to to destroy itself."

Khakroo: "There isn't a worse threat to civilzation"

chimpwatch: "PNACman, good post! A ferocious anti-democratic right wing political movement has seized power in the U.S., and one reason why it has been able to do so is the failure of the opposition to appreciate the true nature of the ideology behind this movement. Democrats continue to play by the rules, while the right wingers and neocons who siezed control of the Republican Party about ten years ago have contempt for all rules or laws that impede their march to power. Like Nazi or Communist ideologues, these people believe that their movement represents the TRUTH, and therefore almost any means can be justified to defeat their enemies, both foreign and domestic. The ideology behind this movement is a combination of free market fundamentalism and a particularly nasty form of Christian fundamentalism. Those who believe in the "Christian" element to this political ideology, including Bush himself and Attorney General John Ashcroft, among others, regard all of their opponents as being literally in the service of SATAN. Given the power that these people have, this ideology represents the greatest political threat to humanity since the demise of Stalinism."

Hat tip to Peter Cuthbertson over at Conservative Commentary for finding this one.

George W. Bush became the first presidential candidate in 2004 to "play the race card" by appearing at the Daytona Speedway Sunday, according to John Forbes Kerry, the presumed Democrat nominee.

"Mr. Bush has again divided this country," said Mr. Kerry. "By appearing at the Daytona 500 he has condoned an economic activity in which the elite win, and everyone else loses."

The junior Senator from Massachusetts called NASCAR racing "another sweet oil deal for the Bush-Cheney-Halliburton cabal. It's more than coincidence that Mr. Bush would make a surprise visit to oil-rich Iraq, and then do the same thing at Daytona."

As president, Mr. Kerry said he would issue an executive order mandating that all NASCAR drivers use hydrogen-powered cars. The Kerry plan calls for the Daytona 500 to be held in Kyoto, Japan, under the supervision of the United Nations, with all drivers wearing baby-blue helmets.

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

Now without question, John Kerry has a number of weaknesses that can be exploited with negative advertising. He's a Massachusetts liberal who votes to the left of Ted Kennedy, he has a terrible voting record on defense, he often flip-flops on the issues, and his behavior after Vietnam was disgraceful.

However, Bush is going to win a 2nd term in November primarily by talking about the issues the American people care about. In my opinion, Bush should use the war on terrorism and taxes/economy as a 1-2 punch to win the election (although gay marriage and a few other issues will come into play as well). Here's an example of the type of radio commercial I think could be a big winner for Bush, especially since I expect the economy to stay strong throughout 2004...

Title: When the going gets tough...

The day George Bush took office, there was a recession in progress and the accounting scandals that would later decimate the stock market had already begun. On top of that, 9/11 was a terrible blow not only to all the families that lost their loved ones, but to our economy as well.

But when the going got tough, George Bush got going and fought tooth and nail to give tax relief to American families. He worked hard to end the marriage penalty, increased the size of the child tax credit, gave Americans their hard earned tax dollars back in the form of rebates, and saw to it that 92 million Americans got to keep an average of $1,083 more of their own money.

Most importantly, by taking the government's hand out of the American's people's pockets, George. W. Bush gave the American economy the stimulus it needed to grow and create jobs again. Since the 3rd quarter of 2003 when the effect of the Bush tax cuts fully kicked in, the economy has grown at an average of X% and Y million jobs have been created (X & Y will be filled in at the time the commercial runs).

But John Kerry wants to put our economic recovery at risk by raising taxes on the American people and spending the money. Haven't the Democrats learned yet that their liberal tax and spend policies just don't work?

Vote George Bush in 2004. He'll fight to create more jobs, keep the economy strong, and keep the government out of your pocket!

Looks like John F. Kerry is emulating his idol, Kennedy, and his predecessor, Clinton, becuase he appears to now have his own bimbo eruptions.

Based on the evidentiary standards created by the Democrats over the Bush military records story, I hereby proclaim that Kerry is an adulterer.

In order for Kerry to prove his innocence, he must, release records showing where he was, every minute of every day for the past ten years. This shouldn't be too hard - they expect Bush to be able to do this for a period thirty years ago.

Second, everyone on the planet must agree that he is innocent- otherwise the charge still stands, and since it is such a serious charge, we simply can not let it go. Yesterday a reporter asked the Bush/Cheney PR guy: " Does it bother you that these questions have been raised about your candidate?" That really is all that matters- that a question has been 'raised.'

Kerry must also provide several witnesses- people who will attest that the only person he has ever slept with since marrying Heiress #2 was in fact the Heiress. Then he has to take a lie detector test. Then maybe I will believe him slightly- but then I can start a meme that his statements were lies, the lie detector test was doctored, etc.

The Democrats want to play these games. Fine. I have put up with this faux outrage from the Dems for three years, and I have tried to be reasonable. The last two months let me realize what kind of people we are dealing with. Bring it on.

If you enjoyed this post by John Cole, you can see more of his work over at Balloon Juice.

Some people would have you believe that Bush lied about Iraq's WMDs. I believe that they're the ones attempting to mislead the American people about how our intelligence agencies work. Unanimity among all members of every intelligence agency on anything is the exception, not the rule. So today, to try to go back and cherry pick dissenting voices about particular issues after the fact and claim that they prove the President lied is willfully deceptive. There's no other conclusion you can come to given the legion of people, Democrat and Republican, foreign and domestic, who agreed before the war that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Bush's position on the extistence of Iraq's WMDs was not substantially different from the positon held by Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, George Tenet, David Kay, Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac, on, and on, and on. To claim that all those people lied about WMD in Iraq, which is in essence what the people who claim Bush lied are doing, is simply ridiculous. (Cont)