I don't think there are words in English language strong enough to convey my disgust with the left-wingers at Indy Media who are trashing Pat Tillman, the Arizona Cardinals safety who gave up a lucrative NFL contract to serve our country as a U.S. Army Ranger, after his death in Afghanistan yesterday. I think these comments from a thead called "Dumb Jock Killed in Afghanistan" speak for themselves...

(ed harley): "how to make a difference

maybe he should have intervened when the CIA was training, funding and equiping bin Laden and Al Qaeda during the 80s. that might have actually accomplished something."

(StevetheGreen): Headline Correction #2

"Capitalist chooses to kill innocents instead of cashing check"

(...): "hero fetishism and white supremacy

it's amazing the kind of attention this insignificant incident is going to cause. well, he was rich, white, and an american. 10,000 (brown) iraqis get killed, and it barely merits a mention in the american news. how utterly f*cking sad. "

(the question of remembrance link): "the question of heroism

To be honest I wish I could feel sorry for the guy, but the truth is I really feel nothing at all. To many have died and too much money has flowed into the pockets of Dick Cheney to even worry about it. Either people will wake up, or they'll continue to waste their lives and the lives of others for the profits of a privileged few. How long will we have to wait for people to embrace a proper remembrance of all the lives that have been lost in the past years?"

(-): "to "just an old soldier"

....Tillman made a choice and got what he deserved, nothing more. You make your choices, and you take your chances. it's a free country, remember? Hey, "just an old soldier" - he could have worked for Halliburton or Blackwater . . ."

(GRINGO STARS): "dumb" is a perfect description of Tillman

Karma sure is a b*tch, isn't it Tillman?"

Hat tip to Allah Is In The House for finding this.

Not long ago, I made a page called Books For Soldiers the RWN website of the day. Here's their pitch...

"Books For Soldiers is a soldier support site that ships books, DVDs and supplies to deployed soldiers and soldiers in VA hospitals, via our large volunteer network.

Help us out, help the troops out, mail them your books."

I'm posting this because I got an email from RWN reader Monique Pappas that read as follows,

"I just wanted to thank you for posting the website "Books for Soldiers". I've already sent two packages of stuff to soldiers and it feels good to help them in a small way. Thanks again."

First of all, I'm pleased to know that there soldiers somewhere who are actually going to get a package because of something I posted on RWN.

Second, this is great opportunity for people who want to help our soldiers, but don't have a lot of money. And who wouldn't want to get rid of a few old books they don't read anymore if it could make life a little better for the men and women who are risking their lives for our freedom?

Trump, bin Laden Top Madman’s Wish-list

The French lawyer representing Saddam Hussein in his upcoming trial for crimes against humanity said today that the former dictator is entitled to a jury of his peers, which in his case means “a jury packed with world-class megalomaniacs.”

The attorney, Jacques Verges, said that Saddam had already drawn up a “wish list” of potential jurors for his trial, topped by al-Qaeda honcho Osama bin Laden and real estate mogul Donald Trump.

“Saddam wants to put together what is basically an all-star team of megalomaniacs, and that team wouldn’t be complete without those two guys,” Mr. Verges said.

But within hours of Mr. Verges’s announcement, a spokesman for Michael Jackson indicated that the self-styled King of Pop would be fishing in the same jury pool as Saddam.

“Michael is determined to get Osama and Trump on his jury and if it means going toe to toe with Saddam Hussein, so be it,” the spokesman said.

Legal experts fear that the potential jury pool of megalomaniacs may become woefully overtaxed in the coming months, especially with actor Robert Blake and record producer Phil Spector coming to trial soon.

Mr. Verges agreed: “My biggest regret as we put together Saddam’s jury is that it doesn’t look like Martha Stewart will be available.”

In other news, the Bush campaign revealed today that it has started broadcasting anti-Kerry attack ads on the planet Mars.

Acknowledging that there is no one on Mars capable of seeing or hearing the ads, a campaign spokesman said, “We had so much money lying around we just kind of decided, what the hey?”

If you enjoyed this satire by Andy Borowitz, you can read more of his work at The Borowitz Report.

After doing the "If I Were Stuck On A Desert Island With Just 10 Bloggers..." post last week, I thought it might be fun to do "The 10 people I'd least like to be stuck on a desert island with". I again decided to split things up, with 5 male & 5 female selections.

After thinking about it, here's who I came up with...

Barbra Streisand: Barbra strikes me as the sort of woman who probably has a servant do everything from driving her around in a limo to wiping when she gets on the toilet. And nobody wants to be stuck on a desert island with a pampered Hollywood star who's complaining that her butler isn't there to hold an umbrella over her so she won't get sunburned.

Mike Tyson: What's not to love about being cooped up on an island with a mentally unstable, ex-boxing champ who bit off someone's ear and has severe anger management problems?

Courtney Love: Kurt Cobain's ex has never exactly been the picture of sanity, but lately she has been nuttier than a jar full of nuts in the middle of a nut processing plant in Nuttyville, Nebraska. I don't know whether she's crazy, whacked out of her gourd on drugs, or some combination thereof, but the last place I'd want to be is trapped on a desert island with her while she works out her problems.

Tom Green: Hey look at me, Tom Green -- look how off the wall I am! I'm sticking a banana in my nose and barking like a seal! Har, har, har! Look at me, look at me! Why are you repeating over and over "Must not strangle Tom Green. Must not strangle Tom Green?" Ha, ha -- now I'm making cow noises and following you around! Ha, ha, ha!

Roseanne Barr: Every time someone says the name "Roseanne Barr," I think of that loathsome devil-harpy screeching our national anthem and then grabbing her crotch and spitting. But, oh she's sorry now! You see she had a rough childhood and one of her multiple personalities was actually responsible and yada, yada, yada. Don't care, hate her, hate her, hate her -- did I mention hate her?

Simon Cowell: I don't even watch American Idol and I can't stand that smart alecky Brit. All I can say is that he'd be my pick for the person "most likely to be bludgeoned to death with a coconut".

Martha Burke from NOW: I bet I couldn't even get together with Mike Tyson and Simon Cowell to have a world championship monkey bashing tournament without Martha Burke complaining that we didn't let women have a turn throwing coconuts at the monkeys. If I want to get together with a deranged boxer and an Englishman who needs a beating with a sack of doorknobs to try and bash a few monkeys, I don't need "the woman" trying to bring us down!

Michael Jackson: The last thing on earth I want to see after waking up on a desert island is pale, weird looking, Michael Jackson standing over me, softly mumbling to himself, and asking if I've seen his lost nose.

Ingrid Newkirk: Ingrid Newkirk is the kook who runs PETA and I can just imagine her cutting all of our fishing lines and trying to scare any birds away that we ran across so we wouldn't have a chance to catch and eat them. All I can say is that if I'm stuck on a desert island and you reach over to free a monkey I just caught before I can cook it over an open fire, you're drawing back a bloody stump. No one can say they weren't warned.

Louis Farrakhan Somehow, I imagine there would be a lot of conversations like this with ole Calypso Louie...

Me: Hey Louis, I'm not going to eat all of this coconut. You want half of it?

Louis Farrakhan: Isn't that typical of the white devil? He enslaves the black man for 400 years and then thinks he can make up for it with half a coconut.

Me: Uh....yeah, OK. I'll see if anyone else wants it then...

Louis Farrakhan: That's a white devil for you right there. First, he offers a meager half a coconut and then he snatches it away...

Me: Ah....great. I..uhm...I'm just going to set this coconut right here and if you want it, it's yours. Ok, Louis?

Louis Farrakhan: That's what I thought! When the black man stands up to the white devil, he runs like the coward he is!

Me: Ok, Louis. You enjoy that half a coconut, I'm going to the other side of the island for a while...

Well, it looks like I've gotten Meryl Yourish all riled up again by mentioning that Moxie was a "hot Cali chick" and that Joyce from Transcended was "easy on the eyes" in my "If I Were Stuck On A Desert Island With Just 10 Bloggers..." post last week. Here's the crux of what Meryl said about which bloggers she'd pick to be on a desert island with her...

"Wind Rider of Silent Running, because I've met him. He's cute. I'd sleep with him.

Oh. You mean there was supposed to be some other reason for making my choices? Whoops. I couldn't tell from reading the remarks about the women in Hawkins' post."

Now it's quite ironic that Meryl is complaining about this since Kyberly Swygert and Michele Catalano both complained -- with tongues firmly in cheek -- that I DIDN'T say they were hot. But in truth, I can't protest too much because I knew what Mox, Joyce, Kymberly, Michele, & Dawn looked like and to me, "easy on the eyes" describes all of them pretty well.

But even so, I have to say in my defense that -- I hope Meryl is sitting down for this -- men -- well most men anyway -- like women. Furthermore, if there's anything men like better than women, it's pretty women. I know that some of you -- Meryl & Ilyka Damen (I'll be getting to her in a moment) for example -- may find this to be shocking, but it's true.

That's why you can watch just about any TV show, any movie, look at advertisements in magazines, on billboards, on TV, and see drop dead gorgeous women, many of whom are trying to give you the impression that they might drop their clothes to the ground at any moment.

And I know what the standard response to that is ,

"You sexist pig! It's people like you who screw up the blogosphere for everybody! Don't you know that sex and gender and boobies -- I feel demeaned for having to use the word boobies in a sentence by the way -- should have absolutely nothing to do with anything in the blogosphere? Nothing at all! It should be purely about merit!"

You know what I say to that? "Tough luck, being beautiful is a plus. That's the world we live in, learn to deal with it".

That's also the same thing I'd say to Ilyka Damen who got all huffy because I pointed out a couple of things that are pretty obvious to anyone who follows the blogosphere,

"The average male blogger will link a piece written by a female blogger, especially one who's attractive, over an equally well written piece on the same topic by a man, 9 times out of 10."

"To be honest, I'm not even sure there are 35 readable blogs written by women on the right side of the blogosphere. By the time you get that deep -- assuming you don't count male/female group blogs -- you'd practically be down to women posting flag cake recipes every two days."

Here's the gist of what Ilyka had to say about those quotes,

"Here's my radical feminist proposition: How about you just read what folks write and link it based on merit? Of course, some of you claim you do exactly that. Like John Hawkins, who says he's "not even sure there are 35 readable blogs written by women on the right side of the blogosphere." What. The f*ck. Ever.

...And it also remains a fact that you guys prefer your female bloggers to do more than just share your political values. You'd prefer that they be attractive, write about sex often, advertise that they have boobies, and make you feel "funny in the pants." And you'll link them often if they meet those criteria, sure--but very, very seldom if they don't."

Ok, let me interject some reason here, because you know how emotional chicks like Ilyka get about this sort of stuff (heh, heh).

First off, I totally stand by what I said about how few quality weblogs there are written by women on the right side of the net although I want to emphasize that doesn't mean there aren't top notch weblogs written by conservative ladies out there. For example, right off the top of my head, I can tell you that I Love Jet Noise, Betsy's Page, Electric Venom, Being American In T.O., Sheila A-Stray's Redheaded Ramblings, Cut On The Bias, On The Third Hand, and Absinthe & Cookies are examples of very readable, enjoyable, regularly updated, blogs written by women.

But, are there 35 blogs written by conservative women that are anywhere close to as good as the ones I just mentioned? Not by a longshot. In fact, Ilyka actually attempted to come up with a list of 35 "readable" women's blogs from the right side of the blogosphere and it was actually so difficult to do that she ended up including a blog that has been updated once this year -- in February. I will also be nice enough not to point out how many of the blogs on that list didn't even bother to update YESTERDAY. Trust me, if you're not even bothering to post every day M-F, you're not a "quality blog" -- well, except for Stephen Green -- he can get away with it.

It's also worth noting that the most successful female run blogs ever on the right side of the net -- the no longer political A Small Victory & the now defunct blog of Rachel Lucas -- both cracked 4000 daily uniques (which puts them in "rare air" for the blogosphere) WITHOUT doing sex drenched commentary or "boobie talk". How's that for merit based linking?

So while women can be successful in the blogosphere without ever showing a pic or mentioning sex, if you're a female blogger and you're attractive, you'll get more traffic if you post your picture on your page. And if you're so inclined to talk about sex, hey why not? It's only going to bring in more visitors....

"But John, but John, that's so unfair!"

The reality is that most men enjoy being around &/or being flirted with by pretty women -- even in the cyber world -- and you need to just accept it. Being surprised that's the case is like being upset that your dog enjoys chasing a ball or chewing on a bone more than going to the opera. That's how it is, was, and will probably always be and if you're shocked or angry about it, you have the problem, not the dog.

Yes, this is real background from the Kerry For President Website. Look at this pic and the infamous Kerry daisy pic and ask yourself if a 60 year old man who wears a flower zipper vest when he goes snowboarding and tries to impress a bunch of 18 year old kids by playing the guitar is the man you want in the White House during a crisis. Come on folks, we're not talking about the president of the high school French club here, we're talking about the "Leader of the Free World"...

Hat tip to Allah Is In The House for finding this.

As I was perusing the Democratic Underground today, I ran across an "intriguing" column that actually made the mainpage of DU. It's by Bernard Weiner -- Ph.D don't ya know -- and it's called Shallow Throat to Dems: "Time to Go for the Jugular" . The piece is basically an advice column -- a really bad one as a matter of fact -- for John Kerry.

Unsurprisingly, it starts out by advising Kerry to "go for that jugular" which I find amusing, because it's the standard boilerplate suggestion that everybody in both parties always makes. However in reality, everybody in Washington is going "for that jugular" all the time. For people like Karl Rove, Tom Delay, Ted Kennedy, & Bob Shrum, going "for that jugular" is about as natural as going to the bathroom and it occurs just about as frequently. But, you can only get so nasty without turning people off, which is why you don't hear Republicans in DC claiming Democrats are rooting for terrorists and Dems claiming Bush is a drunken, cocaine snorting crook who let 9/11 happen on purpose.

Next up, believe it or not, the author advises Kerry to -- and you're not going to believe this -- to flip-flop on the issues =D

"(H)e voted for the blank-check that allowed Bush to go to war in Iraq, he voted for the Patriot Act, he supports Sharon's bestial policies in Palestine. Kerry has got to admit he made some mistakes - something Bush is incapable of doing, but Kerry can - about those positions.

"He has to go to the American people and say he is wiser now than he was then; his votes were based on faulty information; he, we all, got snookered by a lying Bush Administration to convince and manipulate us into a war of choice, not one of necessity. And he was caught up, as were we all, by the immediate fear and desire to get the terrorists after 9/11, and voted in haste for the Patriot Act."

That's a recipe for success isn't it -- more flip-flopping for Kerry? Moreover, Kerry has already waffled on war in Iraq and the Patriot Act and undoubtedly he has only held firm on Israel because there's no political gain in doing so. Israel has support from the majority of voters, so hammering them isn't going to gain you anything with the average person. Furthermore, the Dems are already afraid -- and justifiably so -- that a lot of Jews are going to defect to the GOP because Bush is such a strong supporter of Israel. Is this really going to help hold those voters?

Then Weiner goes on to suggest (in so many words) that a few better writers and tips from Bill Clinton can turn Kerry from a plodding dullard into a...well another Bill Clinton on the stump. Hey, if it was just that easy, everyone would do it. I mean Kerry has been in the public eye for more than 3 decades now and if he hasn't become charismatic yet, it isn't going to ever happen.

Next suggestion, "Kerry can be a give-'em-hell-Harry kind of candidate, a straight shooter who tells it like it is."

The "straight shooter" thing is just a gimmick and people know it which is why it doesn't work very well. Ask John McCain -- the loser of 2000 Republican primaries -- about that some time. Here's more from Weiner,

"Third, he should hold a major press conference, make some major announcements and then, for an hour, demonstrate how at ease he is with answering pointed questions from the reporters, how much knowledge he has at his fingertips, how 'presidential' he looks when measured against Dubya Doofus, how relaxed and self-deprecatingly funny he can be."

Boy, this guy has real faith in Clinton's ability to teach Kerry to speak doesn't he? Because I'm going to tell you, Kerry certainly doesn't appear to be "at ease...answering pointed questions," knowledgable, or particularly presidential today....well, unless think Kerry repeating that he fought in Vietnam over and over again like a parrot somehow makes him a gifted speaker.

Then believe it or not, Weiner goes even further off the rails...

"Fourth, he needs to address the computer-voting issue head-on. It won't matter if more citizens choose him on November 2nd unless their votes are accurately recorded and tabulated. His victory could be stolen unless the scandal of touch-screen voting problems is dealt with. As Stalin said, what matters is not who votes, but who counts the votes."

Yes, that's just what John Kerry needs -- to come off as some sort of conspiracy kook who thinks Republicans are rigging the elections. That'd really pull in those undecided voters wouldn't it?

Weiner then babbles on a bit about Rove's "dirty tricks" and what Democrats should do in the event of a terrorist attack (blame Bush -- big surprise there, huh?) and he's done.

While these are certainly not the best ideas I've ever seen, it could be worse. I mean imagine how badly Kerry actually told the truth? Do you think the country's ready for a Massachusetts liberal who's to the left of Ted Kennedy, wants to give the UN a veto over how we use our military, abandon Iraq to a dictator, raise the gas tax 50 cents, & push for gun control. Compared to that, getting those speaking lessons from Slick Willie and raving about Diebold being part of a Republican plot doesn't look so bad...

Although several hundred thousand abortion rights supporters are expected to march in Washington D.C. this coming Sunday, a spokesman for a major special interest group said its members would not attend the rally.

The American Association of Aborted People (AAAP), a political inaction committee, said none of its 38 million members would participate in the protest march.

"Since the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision in 1973, our ranks have swelled by about 1.4 million per year," said the unnamed AAAP spokesman. "So, we should be at the center of any debate about abortion. Unfortunately, none of our members could tear themselves away to attend the rally. But we'll be there in spirit, if not in body."

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

Before the war in Iraq, anti-war activists poo-poo'd the idea that George Bush was serious about Democracy in Iraq. All we heard was,

"Bush is just going to Iraq for (cheap oil / to make money for Haliburton / to get revenge for Saddam's attempt to kill his daddy / insert other dunderheaded theories here). We're the ones who want to help the Iraqi people and that's why we want to leave Saddam in power...ehr, maybe I should have phrased that better, but you get the general idea."

Yet, we're more than a year out from the end of the war and Bush is just as committed to Democracy in Iraq as he was before we went in despite the costs, the insurgency, and the endless complaints of the Democrats. It would have been the easiest thing in the world for Bush to install some strongman with promises of freedom at some undetermined point down the road and honestly, it probably would have benefitted him politically to do so. But to W's credit, he has been a rock when it comes to Iraqi freedom.

On the other hand, those who are watching John Kerry closely may have noticed that he's already laying the groundwork to abandon the Iraqis to a dictator. The first clue is his insistence on letting the UN run things on the ground, which is a recipe for failure if I've seen one. The UN is up to their eyeballs in the oil for food scandal, loaded with countries that didn't support the invasion in Iraq and would like to see Democracy fail there, and most importantly, the UN ran from Iraq with their tails between their legs after they were bombed back in 2003. The UN just doesn't have the credibility to play a central role in Iraq.

Moreover, this quote from Kerry has not gotten the attention it deserves,

"With respect to getting our troops out, the measure is the stability of Iraq. [Democracy] shouldn't be the measure of when you leave. I have always said from day one that the goal here . . . is a stable Iraq, not whether or not that's a full democracy."

Even the lefties at the Washington Post can see where this is going,

"Where once he named democracy as a task to be completed, and the alternative to "cutting and running" or a "false success," Mr. Kerry now says democracy is optional. Where once he warned against setting the conditions for an early but irresponsible withdrawal of U.S. forces, now he does so himself by defining the exit standard as "stability," a term that could describe Saudi Arabia or Iran -- or the Iraq of Saddam Hussein."

In the end, the Iraqi people, not America will be the deciding factor in whether Iraqi becomes free. But unless the US sticks it out and helps them move forward, the way we did in Japan, Germany, and South Korea, the Iraqis have no chance.

George Bush has made it clear, he's going the distance in Iraq while it's becoming increasingly clear that John Kerry has made no such commitment. So I think it's fair to say that the election in November will not only decide who the next POTUS will be, it'll likely decide whether the Iraqi people will continue live as free men or will once again be slaves.

Thanks to Chuck Hagel's latest irresponsible & thoughtless comments about reinstating the draft, lefties around the net are again unneccessarily freaking out about getting drafted.

For example at the Democratic Underground, we have threads titled...

-- Could reinstatement of the draft spark a neo counter-culture?
-- The DRAFT: It's easy to send kids to war when they are not your own
-- Maybe the draft is what this country needs
-- Did anyone just see Hagel talking about the draft on CNN?
-- DRAFT: ....yes or no? & what about drafting women?
-- Draft -- is it a Litmus Test?
-- CNN Poll on the Draft

...and that's not even all of them.

I've gone into detail about this subject before, but let me reiterate that...

-- The Bush administration says it's opposed to a draft.
-- The military is opposed to the draft.
-- Support for a draft in Congress -- on either side of the aisle -- is almost negligible.
-- Pushing through a draft would be political suicide.
-- The military is currently meeting its recruiting goals.
-- There has yet to be any sort of mass exodus from the military or National Guard despite the war on terrorism.
-- We are not THAT short on troops. We have 160k+ in Europe and South Korea right now for example.
-- Armies filled with military conscripts have proven -- not only in our experience but world over -- to be far less effective than armies composed of volunteers. That's not to denigrate the draftees who fought in Vietnam and WW2, it's just acknowledging the obvious fact that people who want to be in the military and intend to be there for a while are going to outperform those who don't want to be there and intend to leave as soon as possible.

There isn't going to be a draft in the foreseeable future and anyone who tells you otherwise is either ignorant, a grandstanding blowhard like Chuck Hagel, or trying to mislead you...

RWN was mentioned in the Washington Post today as part of article about candidates advertising with blogads. Here's the relevant copy,

"There are hundreds, if not thousands, of such blogs, each offering its own, usually partisan, take on the nation's politics. But a handful have attracted somewhat sizable followings. On the left, there is, for example, DailyKos.com, TalkingPointsMemo.com and Atrios.blogspot.com. On the right, there are, among others, InstaPundit.com, RightWingNews.com and LittleGreenFootballs.com/weblog/. Experts said the sites are ripe for political advertising because they reach thousands of people who are clearly interested in politics, and whose political leanings can be readily surmised. "This is the campfire that the partisans are gathered around," Copeland said."

Ahhh, how sweet it is to get a mention in the WAPO which I think could fairly be called America's #2 paper behind the New York Times. On the other hand, as far as I can tell, the WAPO sent me very little traffic, but that's always how it goes with these dead tree mags that don't use hyperlinks.

Incidentally, if you'd like to check out or contribute to the campaigns of our candidate advertisers, Robert Lamutt, Bryan Coffman, & Nathan Tabor, feel free to give them a look.

After bowing to pressure to release his Vietnam-era military records, Democrat presidential hopeful John Forbes Kerry today adamantly refused to release his U.S. Senate records.

"It's one thing to probe into a candidate's military service and medical records," said Mr. Kerry. "But frankly what I did, or did not do, in the privacy of the U.S. Senate chambers is nobody's business."

Critics are particularly interested in seeing any comprehensive health care bill that Mr. Kerry has sponsored. On the campaign trail, he been a tireless advocate of health coverage for all Americans, but in more than a decade as a Senator, no evidence has emerged that he wrote or sponsored any such legislation.

"Legislating is not the only way to create law," said Mr. Kerry. "When I'm president, I plan to issue an executive order forcing the Supreme Court to create a new civil right to comprehensive health care coverage."

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

Hey look! The Nazis over at the Vanguard News Network noticed I was making fun of them back in Feb and they're not pleased...

Vlad: Now is that Keystone or Dethicus who posted such hateful lunacy about VNN forum? That thread on rightwingnews.com is a fine example of wretched spite and defamation that we can all learn from. Forget jews, republicans are far more dangerous. Jeebus help us.

RWN, even more dangerous than the Jew according to Nazis! I have another new slogan!

But new slogans aside, it was lucky I dropped in because I didn't even realize that April 20th was Hitler's birthday! How could I miss this opportunity to peruse the world of Fascist trash and see what they had to say about their hero -- Hitler? This will be pure ACPOTI (Anyone Can Post On The Internet) Gold!

For example, check out these posts from a thread entitled "Liberals who compare Bush to Hitler"...

Adolph Hitler: "How dare they ruin Hitler's image by comparing him to Bush! Don't they realize he's the biggest sellout there is? He's practically Ariel Sharon's lapdog."

Here's another one from the same thread...

N*gger Boy: "Hitler was the monumental figure of the 20th Century. A man of truth in a 100 years of lies and misinformation. Adolph towers over the entire 20th century as the one guy who actually decided to do something about the international vermin. To compare a mediocre president like Bush to such a collossus is an insult to the glory of national socialism. Liberals suck. They live in fantasy land created by the collective mind of the lower middle class. Hitler is one of the top 5 figures from history. To compare these fools to him is to insult the name of one of the greatest men who ever lived, Adolph Hitler."

But if you think that's bad, how about the ultimate insult to a Nazi -- comparing Hitler to Ariel Sharon?

Neptune_Towers: "Don't feel so bad. I have seen f*ckers compare Sharon to Adolf and Saddam as well. As if that rank amateur could possibly fill his shoes."

Then there's this thread about who's going to win the election. It's not exactly Crossfire or anything, but apparently the Nazis are really concerned about the "Zog" factor. Them and Indy Media I suppose...

Georgie: "Bush is too useful to ZOG to be let go. I suspect that somewhere Osama bin Laden is being held by U.S. forces so that at the right moment they can tell the whole word that the U.S. Army has "captured" him and pretty much fool the stupid American public into voting Bush into power again. (Well...votes dont mean sh*t..its the Electoral College that selects a president).

Whenever that moment may be I dont know but I would not be surprised if amazing near the end of Bush's presidency, Osama was "caught" and all those patriotic Americans can go hoolin' and hollerin' about how 9/11 has been revenged etc."

T.Garrett: "ZOG has been looking for a way to install a man who is a known jew as 'president' for a long while now. I think they are going to make Kerry president, IMHO. Remember, jews feel they 'own' USA so why wouldnt they want one of their own in the top political office? Our votes, opinions, yelling screaming WHATEVER dont count for sh*t with these people, they are going to do whatever they d@mn well please with us and our country. This is our problem, not who is gonna be the next president, LOL, that was decided in some boardroom long ago. Cheers"

If there any Nazis who happen to read this, let me give you some friendly advice: forget about being a Nazi & Hitler, repeat "the Zog does not exist" 50 times, and rejoin the rest of the human race. Come on, it's so bad -- look how well it worked out for Robert Byrd -- he went from Klansman to US Senator. It's not too late for you yet....

America's "good friend," Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is warning us that,

"Today there is hatred of the Americans like never before in the region....At the start some considered the Americans were helping them. There was no hatred of the Americans. After what has happened in Iraq, there is unprecedented hatred and the Americans know it....People have a feeling of injustice. What's more, they see (Israeli Prime Minister Ariel) Sharon acting as he pleases, without the Americans saying anything. He assassinates people who don't have the planes."

First off, if anybody knows about "hatred of the Americans," it would Hosni Mubarak since the government controlled Egyptian press spews out a seemingly endless supply of hatred for the United States.

Secondly, I'm glad that the homicidal terrorists in Hamas "don't have the planes". Because if they did "have the planes," they'd just end up crashing them into Israeli buildings. That's the kind of people they are. They've also called for attacks on Americans so as far as I'm concerned, the faster the Israelis kill them, the better.

But most importantly, the claim that "(t)here was no hatred of the Americans" is hogwash, bilge, balderdash, hokum, piffle, & poppycock! Anti-Americanism is nothing new in the Middle-East and it predates America's strong support for Israel. Don't believe me?

Let's hop in the wayback machine and go back to the "6 Day War" in 1967. Not only was America neutral in that conflict, we acted behind the scenes to restrain Israel. In fact, were it not for our influence (and Israel's fear of the Soviets), it's entirely possible we may have seen Israeli tanks rolling through Cairo &/or Damascus after Israel's forces routed the genocidal Arab armies aligned against them.

So what was our reward from the Arab world? Thanks? Parades and rose petals? No, they actually accused us of teaming up with the Israelis to bomb them! Here are a handful of quotes from that period to give you an idea of how Americans were viewed almost 37 long years ago in the Middle-East...

"America is now the number 1 enemy of the arabs...the American presence must be exterminated from the Arab homeland." -- Algiers Radio, from Michael Oren's "Six Days of War"

"The Arab seas and the fish in them will feed on the Americans' rotting imperialist bodies." -- Before the war on Syrian radio, via Victor Davis Hanson

"Millions of Arabs are preparing to blow up all of America's interests, all of America's installations, and your entire existence, America." -- Radio Cairo, via Victor Davis Hanson

The corrupt strongmen at the top may change, but the verbiage doesn't change all that much and it won't, until freedom comes to the region...

Campaigning for the re-election of U.S. Senator Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania yesterday, President George Bush called the incumbent Senator "the best so-called 'Republican' candidate who can probably win in November and maintain the appearance of a Republican majority in the Senate."

It was strong praise for a candidate who opposes the president's own views on issues like abortion, tax cuts and the USA Patriot Act, and counts among his supporters liberal financier George Soros and former President Bill Clinton's one-time deputy chief of staff, Harold Ickes.

Mr. Bush characterized Mr. Specter's opponent in the April 26 primary, Congressman Pat Toomey, as a "good, conservative Republican, but one who lacks the most important qualification: incumbency."

"Even though my personal views align more with Pat Toomey's," said the president, "I still find myself siding with Mr. Specter, as if drawn by some mysterious force that roves to and fro across the land, placing strategy above integrity."

In exchange for the president's campaign backing, Mr. Specter, the likely chairman of the Senate judiciary committee in the next session, promised to support "any judge Mr. Bush nominates who's not clinically insane or pro-life...which is a redundancy in my view."

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

Tonight, long after most of us have drifted off into a contented slumber, dreaming wondrous dreams, there will be people laying awake. People like Bob Shrum, Mary Beth Cahill, and even John Kerry himself will be looking up at the ceiling, drenched in their own nervous sweat, wondering if this is what it feels like to watch a campaign slip away into the ether.

What could produce such a reaction? Numbers my friends, very, very, bad numbers for the Kerry campaign. Despite the insurgency in Iraq, despite the 9/11 hearings, despite massive numbers of negative ads attacking Bush, despite it all, Bush is getting stronger while Kerry is hemmoraging support because of Bush's negative ads....

There's a name whispering on the wind, softly, ever so softly...Dukakis, Dukakis, Dukakis. Can you hear it? John Kerry can....

If you'd like a cleaner image to send in email, make into a flyer, or put up on your web page, you can get it here.