-- You know, it's easy to understand why so many people get bent out of shape about whether or not electronic voting is secure or not, but have you ever noticed that very few people -- well, very few liberals at least -- seem to be bothered by this sort of thing...

"Beyond requiring applicants to sign a pledge on voter-registration forms affirming that they are U.S. citizens, there is no way to prevent the nation's estimated 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens from casting ballots in November, area elections officials said.

...Dan Stein, president of the D.C.-based Federation for American Immigration Reform, said relaxed voting regulations and the ability to register to vote through the Department of Motor Vehicles allows illegal immigrants to get a form of legitimate identification.

"There are huge fraud problems out there," he said. "There's no safeguards on it."

He also said those groups pushing voter-registration efforts this year don't check to see if registrants are citizens. This flaw has the potential to "corrupt" the political system, he said.

"Aliens have already shown they are willing to break U.S. law to come here. Why should we expect them to not vote?" Mr. Stein asked. "In a system where virtually no effort is made to ensure integrity, we'd be naive to say it isn't going on. You only need one vote to swing an election."

It's too late to do it for the 2004 election, but the GOP should really push to make sure our elections are secure for 2006. And that means not only making sure electronic voting booths are secure (open source software would go a long way towards insuring that's the case), but preventing fraud by asking people for ID when they vote. The left will oppose that of course because they undoubtedly pick up millions of extra votes across the US each election via fraud, but making sure our elections are honest and transparent is vitally important.

-- It goes without saying that I'm not a big fan of Teresa Heinz Kerry, but I do have a certain measure of sympathy for her. I mean imagine that you're Teresa Heinz Kerry.

....You're married to a US Senator, you have more money than you can spend in one lifetime, and you're fairly happy with your pampered, jet-setting life.

But then, your husband runs for President and you have to play the dutiful wife. That means you have to spend more than a year on the campaign trail, doing campaign events, giving speeches, pressing flesh at fast food restaurants, and all the while, the relentless glare of the media spotlight is on you.

And let's face it, unlike Laura Bush who's the "perfect President's wife," you're a net liability to the campaign. You say dumb things all the time, a lot of people don't like you, and partisan Republicans who view you as a snobby, unlikable, elite say nasty things about you on a regular basis.

How unfair that must seem. I mean, you're not the one running for office, right? You're not another Hillary Clinton, who's dying to get her hands on the levers of power in Washington. Heck, as a matter of fact, if you had your druthers about it, you'd be out on a yacht somewhere with a bunch of friends from Europe. Life was so much better before John ran for President...

Like I said, I don't particularly like Teresa, but I really get the feeling that she never wanted to be in this position to begin with...

-- Bill Burkett is apparently a little cheesed that bloggers sniffed out his fake memos...oh, I'm sorry...he says he didn't forge them; a mystery woman no one else can track down did. Anywho, Burkett is claiming that the White House secretly coordinated with bloggers to knock down the memos...

"Burkett also accused the White House of using the blog community to launch a “kill the messenger campaign” against him after the documents were made public."

Lol, I wish the White House was coordinating with bloggers. If that were the case, then they could "coordinate" out some interviews with Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, Dick Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz. Karl Rove, if you're out there, it's not too late to hook a blogger up!

-- Some people believe John Kerry when he says that he'll be able to get other nations to do the dirty work for us in Iraq because he's a liberal who gives the impression that he wouldn't mind licking a few Old European boots.

However, I can't think of a politician in a recent memory who has been ruder or more insulting to the allies we do have than Senator flip-flop. He refers to the countries that are sending their soldiers to fight and die beside of US troops in Iraq as the "coalition of the coerced and the bribed". His shrewish sister is running around in Australia at his behest telling the Aussies that it's a mistake to be allied with us because we're "endangering" them. Then Iraq's interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi addressed Joint Session of Congress and not only does Kerry not bother to show, he in essence called the Prime Minister a liar and sends his senior adviser Joe Lockhart out to gratuitously insult Allawi as a "puppet of the United States".

Kerry has behaved disgracefully and irresponsibly, spitting in the face of our real allies, all in an effort to impress nations like France, Spain, and Germany that have proven that they can't be counted on in the war on terror. What a disaster Kerry would be as President...

***Update #1***: The WAPO, in an article about political ad buys, notes that...

"Kerry's campaign has moved ad money out of states once deemed competitive (Arkansas, Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri, Arizona and Colorado), but for now considered in Bush's column."

4 things...

1) Given the minimal impact John Edwards has had on the election since his selection gave the campaign a tiny bounce, I wonder if Kerry is wishing that he had selected Dick Gephardt for his veep? Not that Gephardt is a world beater or anything, but he might have been enough to deliver Missouri's 11 electoral votes to Kerry.

2) Most of these states that Kerry is ceasing ad buys in aren't a big suprise, but Colorado has been really tight and the Democrats had high hopes for Missouri. So, to give up both of those states really stings.

3) The number of states that went for Bush in 2000 that Kerry has a chance of winning in are really starting to thin out now and Florida (along with its 27 electoral votes) has become particularly crucial. If Kerry loses Florida and/or Pennsylvania, I don't think he can win the election.

4) There's also one possible nightmare scenario -- think Florida 2000 part deux -- on the horizon. Bush is almost sure to take Colorado again, along with its 9 electoral votes.

However, there's a measure on the ballot that's designed to split Colorado's electoral votes "on the basis of the popular vote" and it's supposed to be retroactive so that it would apply for this election.

That's a really dumb idea which would make Colorado irrelevant to future elections because in practice no candidate would ever be able to win more than one electoral vote in what is a fairly evenly divided state.

Oh and can you imagine the political battles & court challenges if states like Texas, California, & New York tried to ape what Colorado is doing in future elections?

It would be a nightmare.

Moreover, this could cause particular problems this year. I say that because if Bush were to win Colorado, this ballot Amendment passed, and Bush lost because of it (which is not out of the realm of possibility), there's a 100% chance that this would be fought all the way up to the Supreme Court since it's retroactive.

Did I say it would be a nightmare yet? I did, but it's worth repeating...

*** Correction: ***: While John Kerry's sister made her comments to an Aussie paper, she made them from the US, not from Australia. That means she was not "running around Australia" when she tried to undercut our alliance with Australia....

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat and was for distribution of all wealth.

She felt deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, which she expressed openly. One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs.

Based on the lectures that she had participated in and the occasional chat with a professor she felt that for years her father had obviously harbored an evil, even selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father.

He stopped her and asked her point blank, how she was doing in school. She answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain. That she studied all the time and never had time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your good friend Mary doing?"

She replied, "Mary is barely getting by." She continued, "She barely has a 2.0 GPA," adding, "and all she takes are easy classes and she never studies." "But Mary is so very popular on campus, college for her is a blast, she goes to all the parties all the time and very often doesn't even show up for classes because she is too hung over."

Her father then asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's Office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your 4.0 GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0." He continued, "That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter visibly shocked by her father's suggestion angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I worked really hard for mine, I did without And Mary has done little or nothing, she played while I worked real hard!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said, "Welcome to the Republican Party."

I received this joke via email today.

I know this isn't the most serious topic, but it's a Friday night, so what the hey...in order, my 10 favorite pics of John Kerry...

10) Rockin' John Kerry!
9) Quizzical Kerry
8) Leering Kerry
7) Wha?
6) Kerry as Laurel
5) Throwing like a girl
4) Worst catch ever
3) Kerry 'N' Fonda watch the show
2) Bunny suit
1) This Is A Daisy Age!

Democrat presidential contender John Forbes Kerry today offered to give Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi a guided tour of Iraq to clear up misunderstandings that Mr. Allawi has about the situation in his own nation.

"I'm grateful to Sen. Kerry for his generous offer," said Mr. Allawi at a joint Rose Garden news conference with President George Bush. "I'm sure he has a much clearer perspective on events in my homeland than I do."

A spokesman for the Kerry-Edwards campaign said the tour will help Prime Minister Allawi to "see the ugly face of American foreign policy and petro-imperialism, and strip him of his misplaced optimism."

Asked about Mr. Kerry's trip to Iraq, President Bush said, "He might as well go now, because after I'm re-elected, he'll probably get called up in the draft."

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

"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president." -- John Kerry 12/20/03

"...(T)he satisfaction we take in (Saddam's) downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure." -- John Kerry, 9/20/04

"Well, what can we say of Senator Kerry? He was for the war and then he was against the war. He was for it, but he wouldn't fund it. Then he'd fund it, but he wasn't for it. He was for the Patriot Act until he was against the Patriot Act. Or was he against it until he was for it? I forget. He probably does, too. This is a candidate who has to Google his own name to find out where he stands." -- George Pataki

"But I don't think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We're not going to cut and run and not do the job." -- John Kerry on the $87 billion dollars spent to rebuild Iraq and support our troops in Iraq, 9/14/03

"I'm proud to say that John (Edwards) joined me in voting against that $87 billion..." -- John Kerry, 7/12/04

"I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." -- John Kerry, 3/19/04

"My point about John Kerry being inconsistent is best described in his own words, not mine. I quote John Kerry, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." Maybe this explains John Edwards' need for two Americas. One is where John Kerry can vote for something and another where he can vote against exactly the same thing." -- Rudy Giuliani

"Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that and I disagree with the Governor [Howard Dean]." -- John Kerry, 12/15/03

"...(W)e must have a great honest national debate on Iraq. The President claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists." -- John Kerry 9/20/04

"I was just back in my office banging my head on the jukebox. This is my candidate, and...I don't know what he's talking about." -- Don Imus, 9/16/04, after an interview with John Kerry that extensively covered his "position" on the war

"If you don't believe ... Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me." -- John Kerry, USA Today on 2/13/03

"If you think I would have gone to war the way George Bush did, don't vote for me." -- John Kerry, Jan 2004

"When it was popular to be a Massachusetts liberal, his voting record was that. When it was popular to be for the Iraq war, he was for it. Now it's popular to be against it, and he's against it." -- Jay Carson, a Dean campaign spokesman

"I would disagree with John McCain that it’s the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it’s what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that - that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat." -- John Kerry, "Face The Nation", 9/15/02

"It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world....He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel. ...We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future." -- John Kerry 10/9/02

"Yet today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is no - because a Commander-in-Chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe." -- John Kerry, 9/20/04

"Even in this post-9/11 period, Senator Kerry doesn’t appear to understand how the world has changed. He talks about leading a "more sensitive war on terror," as though al-Qaida will be impressed with our softer side. He declared at the Democratic Convention that he will forcefully defend America after we have been attacked. My fellow Americans, we have already been attacked, and faced with an enemy who seeks the deadliest of weapons to use against us, we cannot wait for the next attack. We must do everything we can to prevent it and that includes the use of military force." -- Dick Cheney

"I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq - Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991." -- John Kerry, 7/29/02

"It's the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." -- John Kerry, 9/06/04

"Senator Kerry says, "America should go to war not when it wants to go to war but when it has to go to war." Well, Senator, the firefighters and cops who ran into those burning towers and died on September 11th didn't want to go to war. They were heroes in a war they didn't even know existed. America did not choose this war. But we have a president who chooses to win it." -- George Pataki

"George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry, Democratic Debate, 5/3/03

"Are you one of the anti-war candidates?" -- MSNBC’S Chris Matthews, 1/6/04

"I am, yes, in the sense that I don't believe the president took to us war as he should have, yes. Absolutely. Do I think this president violated his promises to America? Yes, I do, Chris. Was there a way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable? You bet there was and we should have done it right." -- John Kerry, 1/6/04

"(John Kerry) even, at one point, declared himself as an anti-war candidate. And now he says he's pro-war candidate. At this rate, with 64 days left, he still has time to change his position four or five more times." -- Rudy Giuliani

"I think the judgment of a nominee who doesn't understand that having Saddam Hussein captured will make it extraordinarily difficult to be able to beat an incumbent wartime president who captured Saddam Hussein. And let me tell you why, Tim. Saddam Hussein took us to war once before. In that war, young Americans were killed. He went to war in order to take over the oil fields. It wasn't just an invasion of Kuwait. He was heading for the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. And that would have had a profound effect on the security of the United States. This is a man who has used weapons of mass destruction, unlike other people on this Earth today, not only against other people but against his own people. This is a man who tried to assassinate a former president of the United States, a man who lobbed 36 missiles into Israel in order to destabilize the Middle East, a man who is so capable of miscalculation that he even brought this war on himself. This is a man who, if he was left uncaptured, would have continued to be able to organize the Ba'athists. He would have continued to terrorize the people, just in their minds, because of 30 years of terror in Iraq." -- John Kerry on NBC's "Meet The Press, 1/11/04

"The only legitimate reason (to go to war was) the weapons of mass destruction question. But after you built the international coalition, exhausted the [U.N.] inspections and you have no other choice." -- John Kerry, 9/07/04

"The years of keeping Saddam in a box were coming to a close. The international consensus that he be kept isolated and unarmed had eroded to the point that many critics of military action had decided the time had come again to do business with Saddam, despite his near daily attacks on our pilots, and his refusal, until his last day in power, to allow the unrestricted inspection of his arsenal. Our choice wasn't between a benign status quo and the bloodshed of war. It was between war and a graver threat. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Not our critics abroad. Not our political opponents. And certainly not a disingenuous film maker who would have us believe that Saddam's Iraq was an oasis of peace when in fact it was a place of indescribable cruelty, torture chambers, mass graves and prisons that destroyed the lives of the small children held inside their walls." -- John McCain

The war on terrorism is serious business, not some petty political game. While the war is in progress, the lives of our troops, 27 million Iraqis, and countless Americans here at home depend on the decisions made by our Commander-In-Chief.

Given that, do we really want a President who'll radically alter his position on something as important as the war in Iraq based on nothing more than which way the prevailing political winds are blowing? Literally millions of lives, American and Iraqi, may be saved or lost by decisions that are going to be made over the next four years in the White House. So think hard about this, do you really think someone as feckless as John Kerry can be trusted with that sort of responsibility? Obviously, the answer is no...

Hat tip to Reuters for the pic.

Small Business Ideas Forum

A friendly place to share your knowledge, find help, and encourage one another. We discuss topics such as search engine marketing, ecommerce, improving sales, customer service, and much, much more. We'd love to have you drop by for a visit.

Check out the Small Business Ideas Forum by clicking here.

After the singer formerly known as Cat Stevens (TSFKACS) was detained by federal agents in Bangor, Maine, as he attempted to enter the United States, other 1970s pop stars lobbied to get their names included on the Department of Homeland Security's terrorist watch list.

"Cat Stevens shouldn't be grabbing all the glory and the royalties," said Terry Jacks, whose hit "Seasons in the Sun" captivated the nation in 1974. "There are others out there you know -- T. Rex, Helen Reddy, Rick Derringer -- many of them are still alive. Each of us deserves a place on the terrorist watch list, and the publicity that comes with it."

Homeland Security czar Tom Ridge said his department is currently considering requests for inclusion on the watch list from the following: Carl Douglas ('Kung Fu Fighting'), Stealers Wheel ('Stuck in the Middle with You'), Van McCoys ('The Hustle'), Gary Wright ('Dream Weaver'), John Sebastian ('Welcome Back') and Nick Gilder ('Hot Child in the City').

"Now that we have the Cat formerly known as Stevens in custody," said Mr. Ridge, "Other former pop stars will be reluctant to try to penetrate our borders. We've sent a clear signal to potential singer/terrorists: If you try to export your brand of music/terror here, you'll end up cooling your heels in Bangor, Maine."

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

Iraqi interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi addressed a Joint Session of Congress today and gave a phenomenal speech (although it's worth noting that Senator Flip-Flop and his running mate the Fluffy Puppy didn't even bother to show up).

Of course, I'm sure not everyone enjoyed what the Prime Minister had to say, as I did. I mean think about it -- it's bad enough that Allawi had positive things to say about the war and about Iraq's future, but if people like Michael Moore, Ted Rall, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Al Franken, Janeane Garofalo, Al Gore, and yes, as we now know John Kerry had gotten their way, Allawi wouldn't be here.

Instead, America-hating Saddam would still be sitting in Baghdad, collaborating with terrorists, and waiting for that happy day when he could start making WMD's again. So the very fact that Allawi is here is an affront to the left because it's a reminder that 27 million are going to become free only because the left lost the argument about the war in Iraq.

In any case, here are some of the high spots from Allawi's speech that I thought were worth bringing to your attention...

Tough Struggle
------------------

-- "It's a tough struggle with setbacks, but we are succeeding.

My thoughts and prayers go out to their families and to all those who lost loved ones.

-- "Ladies and gentlemen, the costs now have been high. As we have lost our loved ones in this struggle, so have you. As we have mourned, so have you.

Now we are determined to honor your confidence and sacrifice by putting into practice in Iraq the values of liberty and democracy, which are so dear to you and which have triumphed over tyranny across our world."

Elections Will Occur
-----------------------

-- "As we move forward, the next major milestone will be holding of the free and fair national and local elections in January next.

I know that some have speculated, even doubted, whether this date can be met. So let me be absolutely clear: Elections will occur in Iraq on time in January because Iraqis want elections on time."

-- "Our independent electoral commission is working with the United Nations, the multinational force and our own Iraqi security forces to make these elections a reality. In 15 out of our 18 Iraqi provinces we could hold elections tomorrow. Although this is not what we see in your media, it is a fact."

-- "They said we would miss January deadline to pass the interim constitution.

And I pledge to you today, we'll prove them wrong again over the elections."

-- "The Iraqi elections may not be perfect, may not be the best elections that Iraq will ever hold. They will no doubt be an excuse for violence from those that despise liberty, as were the first elections in Sierra Leone, South Africa or Indonesia.

But they will take place, and they will be free and fair. And though they won't be the end of the journey toward democracy, they will be a giant step forward in Iraq's political evolution."

Iraqi Forces Rising To The Challenge
------------------------------------

-- "The Iraqi government now commands almost 50,000 armed and combat- ready Iraqis. By January it will be some 145,000. And by the end of next year, some 250,000 Iraqis."

-- "These new Iraqi forces are rising to the challenge. They are fighting on behalf of sovereign Iraqi governmre is a daily progress, too. Oil pipelines are being repaired. Basic services are being improved. The homes are being rebuilt. Schools and hospitals are being rebuilt. The clinics are open and reopened. There are now over 6 million children at school, many of them attending one of the 2,500 schools that have been renovated since liberation.

We're starting work on 150 new health centers across the country. Millions of dollars in economic aid and humanitarian assistance from this country and others around the world are flowing into Iraq. For this, again, I want to thank you."

Thank You, America
------------------

-- "We are fighting for freedom and democracy, ours and yours. Every day, we strengthen the institutions that will protect our new democracy, and every day, we grow in strength and determination to defeat the terrorists and their barbarism.

We Iraqis are grateful to you, America, for your leadership and your sacrifice for our liberation and our opportunity to start anew."

-- "There are no words that can express the debt of gratitude that future generations of Iraqis will owe to Americans. It would have been easy to have turned your back on our plight, but this is not the tradition of this great country, nor for the first time in history you stood up with your allies for freedom and democracy."

It has been amusing to me to watch the reaction to Cat Stevens being banned from the US. Britain isn't happy about it, the Council On American-Islamic Relations has predictably been whining about this, and of course Stevens AKA Yusuf Islam is claiming to be totally shocked,

"Everybody knows who I am. I am no secret figure," Islam said. "Everybody knows my campaigning for charity, for peace. There's got to be a whole lot of explanation."

Islam said he "absolutely" felt victimized. "But you know, for God's sake people make mistakes," he said. "I just hope they have made a big mistake."

Awwwww! Poor, victimized, Cat Stevens! Why -- he has nothing to do with terrorism. So does that mean he's another victim of John Ashcroft and George Bush's new, fascist, Amerikkka? Kurt Nimmo from ProgressiveTrail.Org certainly seems to think so...

"Yusuf, nee Cat, of course, is not an Arab—but he made a few critical mistakes: he converted to Islam and he is an outspoken peace activist. Naturally, this means Yusuf will never be able to enter the United States again."

Well...I guess that's case closed. Cat Stevens is totally innocent and...hey, what's that odor? It's sort of a weird, funky, scent...oh...I know what it is now! It's the same thing I smell every time Michael Moore comes on TV...it's BS!

So maybe I should do a little research and see what I can find out about Cat? Oh, here's something that's a little disturbing...

"When the Islamic death sentence against Salman Rushdie was pronounced, Cat Stevens told Muslim students at London’s Kingston Polytechnic, “He must be killed. The Qur’an makes it clear: if someone defames the prophet, he must die.”

But, would that be enough to get Cat banned? Probably not, but Steven's ties to Hamas, which Debbie Schlussel discusses, are another matter...

"Cat Stevens hates Jews.

It’s not just what Islam ne Stevens wrote in the anti-Semitic pamphlet, it’s for whom he wrote it: the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), a HAMAS front-group with ties to Al-Qaeda."

And of course, the US isn't the only country Cat Stevens isn't welcome in. Israel kicked him out for giving money to Hamas and lookie, lookie, there's more recent activity that hasn't been made public yet...

"The Department of Homeland Security, set up after the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, believes that the singer contributed funds to groups linked to terrorism through his charities.

Islam, who abandoned his musical career when he became a Muslim in the late 1970s, was expelled from Israel in July 2000 for allegedly providing financial support to the Palestinian group Hamas."

Hey, it's quite the coincidence that they mentioned Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman because according to the Washington Times, there was even a connection between Stevens and the "Blind Sheikh" who was behind the WTC bombing in 1993...

"News reports several years ago linked a Web site and charitable foundation he heads to the Palestinian militant group Hamas, and to the "Blind Sheikh" -- Omar Abdel-Rahman, convicted of involvement in a terrorist plot in New York city a decade ago."

If the terrorist watch list is keeping people like Cat Stevens out of this country, then that means it's working EXACTLY like it's supposed too. Maybe Stevens isn't going to strap a bomb to his chest and run into an elementary school, but he seems to be entirely too friendly with the sort of people who think that sort of thing is A-OK.

So as far as I'm concerned, Stevens can complain all he wants and condemn terrorist attacks until he's blue in the face, but if he's getting in bed with terrorists like Hamas and Omar Abdel-Rahman that have American blood on their hands, then he doesn't belong anywhere near this country.

***Update #1***: Michelle Malkin has more on why Cat Stevens isn't welcome here in the good old US of A.

Graduate student Bryan Cash lost his final friend Tuesday, after a heated debate in which the 26-year-old environmental studies major accused his longtime neighbor of being a fascist.

"He also called me a hate-filled, warmongering closet racist and blatant homophobe," said Mike Opper about the incident. "All I did was mention I heard Rush Limbaugh on the radio the other day. I tried to change the subject before things got ugly, but it just escalated. Let's just say I will no longer be calling Mr. Cash for drinks or Scrabble."

What many of Cash's former friends point to as a pattern, is the seemingly happy-go lucky behavior, followed by many fun-filled nights of drinking and good conversation, but always ending with Cash accusing someone of fascism.

"He called me a fascist last year because I wouldn't let him borrow a pair of my pants," former golf buddy Craig Mobreth said. "I didn't let him borrow my pants because I generally don't loan my pants out to friends."

According to former girlfriend Tina Squire, Cash first accused her of being a fascist while she was working as a hall monitor during high school. She spent many years afterwards fighting that label.

"I didn't even know what it meant at the time," Squire said. "I spent years reading the works of Mussolini and Hitler to get a better understanding of who I was so I could change. That's how much I loved [Cash]. I didn't want to be a fascist any more."

The accusations eventually caused Cash to lose most of his friends, and instead of drinking beer at the graduate lounge where he once spent his weekends, Cash would just sit in the library attempting to argue politics with other students and strangers.

"Obviously he was looking for someone to talk to and vent his strong feelings about the Iraq War," said longtime Berkeley librarian Susan Unger. "But then when I shushed him and politely asked him to keep his voice down, he called me a fascist. Just like that. I didn't even vote for Bush."

One local police officer who asked to remain anonymous admits he was grateful when Cash accused him of fascism after he pulled him over one day and proceed to write him a speeding ticket.

"He called me a small-minded fascist cop and said I was targeting him because he had long hair. I guess in a way he was right, though it was mostly because I thought he was Mexican. Anyway, it made me more careful about who I pull over."

Cash, who refused to grant an interview for this article, did provide a written statement where he agreed he may have gone a bit overboard in his zeal to point out obvious fascists in society.

Wrote Cash, "I only accuse people of being fascist because I want to demonstrate how we live in a police state where our freedoms are at stake every single day by these fascist leaders with fascist policies, pursuing a fascist agenda."

If you enjoyed this satire by Bob From Accounting, you can read more of their work here.

Here's a little secret I've learned from watching left-wingers. When they think they've had a major setback or they're losing, they start acting crazier than normal and slinging dirt.

Wild conspiracy theories get trotted out (See the 'Karl Rove is behind the CBS forgeries line of wawa' that Terry McAuliffe suggested), any dirty trick becomes fair game (The CBS memos anyone?), and they start making wild charges -- like the claim that Bush is going to bring back the draft.

The Kerry campaign has been doing everything possible to try to convince people that Bush is going to bring back the draft in 2005. John Kerry hinted at it today when he said,

"If George Bush were to be reelected, given the way he has gone about this war and given his avoidance of responsibility in North Korea and Iran and other places, is it possible? I can't tell you."

But while Kerry isn't being blunt about it, his surrogates aren't being so coy.

“America will reinstate the military draft” if Bush is re-elected and continues the Iraq War, Cleland predicted, according to an account of his speech by the Colorado Springs Gazette.

...Former Kerry rival Howard Dean, now traveling the country to drum up support for Kerry and raise money for Democratic candidates, said last week at Brown University in Providence, R.I., "I think that George Bush is certainly going to have a draft if he goes into a second term, and any young person that doesn't want to go to Iraq might think twice about voting for him."

Of course, this is pure bupkis, pure fear-mongering -- the exact same sort of thing that Democrats accuse Republicans of doing when they actually -- unlike Democrats -- take terrorism seriously.

I've written in depth about this topic before (here & here), but let me break this down for you another way...

-- The American people are overwhelmingly against a draft.
-- Politicians are going be opposed to a draft because it's political poison.
-- People who support the war on terrorism are going to be opposed to it because it would dramatically undercut support for the war.
-- Generals don't want to spend the money to train a bunch of people who didn't want to enlist in the first place and who intend to leave as soon as possible.
-- The soldiers in the field don't want to fight beside of draftees who don't want to be there.

In other words, whether you are talking about the American people, the Bush administration, Conservatives, Republicans, the military, you name it, there are very few people who support a draft and legions who oppose it.

Moreover, may I add that the only bastion of support for the draft that I know of is among anti-war Democrats like Charlie Rangel, Jim McDermott, John Conyers, and John Lewis who support a draft because they think it would turn people AGAINST the war.

All that being said, here's a helpful hint: anyone who tells you there is going to be a draft is dumb as a brick or a liar who's trying to mislead you. In either case, if they tell you there's going to be a draft, you can safely stop paying attention to them.

Let's say that you suggest going to a local restaurant, but a friend of yours says he has heard that people who work there won't eat the food or let their families eat the food. Do you still go to that restaurant or do you go somewhere else?

Suppose you need to get your car worked on. Would you take your car to a shop if you knew that the people who worked there took their own cars somewhere else and told their kids to do the same?

What if we were talking about a hospital. Would you want to have an operation done at a hospital if the doctors and nurses who worked there sent their own kids somewhere else when they were sick? Of course you wouldn't, because if the people who work there feel that way, obviously there is some sort of problem.

Keeping all of that in mind, read this article from the Washington Times....

"More than 25 percent of public school teachers in Washington and Baltimore send their children to private schools, a new study reports.

Nationwide, public school teachers are almost twice as likely as other parents to choose private schools for their own children, the study by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute found. More than 1 in 5 public school teachers said their children attend private schools.

In Washington (28 percent), Baltimore (35 percent) and 16 other major cities, the figure is more than 1 in 4. In some cities, nearly half of the children of public school teachers have abandoned public schools.

In Philadelphia, 44 percent of the teachers put their children in private schools; in Cincinnati, 41 percent; Chicago, 39 percent; Rochester, N.Y., 38 percent. The same trends showed up in the San Francisco-Oakland area, where 34 percent of public school teachers chose private schools for their children; 33 percent in New York City and New Jersey suburbs; and 29 percent in Milwaukee and New Orleans.

"These results do not surprise most practicing teachers to whom we speak," say report authors Denis P. Doyle, founder of a school improvement company, SchoolNet Inc.; Brian Diepold, an economics graduate student at American University; and David A. DeSchryver, editor of the Doyle Report, an online education policy and technology journal."

39% of the teachers in Chicago send their kids to private school? 41% in Cincinnati? 44% in Philly? Come on, what does that tell you about the quality of education that the students are getting in these schools when the teachers who work there would rather pay big bucks to a private school than have their kids get a free public education?

Tell ya what, school teachers always complain about being underpaid, so why don't we help them -- and all the other parents out there -- with school vouchers? It'll give parents much more of a choice about where to send their kids to school, it'll mean competition that will lead to an improved education, and we're spending the money anyway, right? Every American should at least be able to send their child to a school that's good enough for the teacher's kids and school vouchers can help make that possible.

Kerry recently came out with his four-point plan for Iraq, but they were all basically what Bush is already doing... except Kerry would do it while haughtier and more French-looking. It took a lot of brainstorming for him to come up with those points, and I obtained a probably non-forged document of the rejected ideas.

TOP TEN REJECTED POINTS FOR KERRY'S IRAQ PLAN

10. To help fund it, have corporate sponsorship. I.e., the interim government becomes the Coca-Cola government.

9. Calm fears of allies by negotiating new corrupt deals with France over oil.

8. Don their clothing and become one of them ala Laurence of Arabia.

7. Give troops more nuanced weaponry that never does anything useful but has lots of electronics and switches but never seem to do anything.

6. See if the insurgents would be any nicer if the knew the president of the U.S. served in Vietnam.

5. Send his wife over there to give them an example of what a liberated woman is like.

4. Get people against Sadr by telling them that 'S' stands for "stupid."

3. Rename Iraq "Happy Fun Desert Land" for better marketability.

2. Have all the different factions meet at Kerry's (wife's) Cape Cod estate for a dinner party to resolve all differences over hors douvres.

And the number one rejected point for Kerry’s Iraq plan…

Run away!

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

Of late, the Kerry campaign has turned their attention back to Iraq and of course, since we are talking about John Kerry here, that means his entire position has again shifted. While I have taken the opportunity to poke fun at Kerry for his total inconsistency on the issue, I haven't spent a lot of time refuting his arguments about the war. Reason being is that there is really nothing new about these war debates, they're just a rehash of the exact same old arguments that were talked to death long ago.

This country had more than a year long debate about whether we should hit Iraq or not and then we spent months arguing about it afterwards. Same goes for rebuilding Iraq. That has been discussed over and over again as well. Moreover, John Kerry has been on both sides of both issues multiple times and in essence, his "plan" is exactly the same as George Bush's plan, except Kerry says Bush isn't doing it right.

That being said, I don't think it hurts to do a refresher on the issues every once in a while, particularly on something that is as important as the war in Iraq. So let me tackle this again.

To begin with, was invading Iraq an essential part of the war on terrorism? Without question it was. As George Bush told the world a mere 9 days after 9/11,

"And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

Saddam chose to side with the terrorists and he paid for it.

But, were we right to brand Iraq a threat and invade? Not just yes, but "Hell Yes" we were.

Saddam Hussein was a brutal, maniacal dictator who started two wars of aggression, used WMD's against his own people, had every intention of starting his WMD program back up, sheltered numerous terrorists, and had ties to Al-Queda, and Vladimir Putin himself said that,

"Russian intelligence several times received ... information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations."

Without question, this country is safer with Saddam Hussein out of power.

So what are we doing now? Are we spinning our wheels in Iraq? Not in the least. Just as I said back in August when a reader asked if Iraq was another Vietnam,

"(U)nlike in Vietnam, in Iraq, time is on our side. We're not trying to bring anybody to the negotiating table or just hoping against hope that we can outlast our enemies while politicians make it impossible for our soldiers to win the war. In 6-18 months, we're going to have a Democratic government in Iraq that is completely capable of handling its own security without our help. Once we're to that point, the war's over and we can chalk another one up for the good guys."

The "insurgents" -- who contrary to the impression you might get from watching the nightly news, are PRIMARILY operating in about 20% of the country -- cannot beat us, they can only hope to win by default if we give up. Every day that goes by allows the Iraqi government to add more well trained troops and gets us one day closer to National Elections in January. And once there is a Democratically elected Iraqi government that has a large, well, equipped army at its disposal, American casualties will drop off precipitously, hatred for the "insurgents" will surge (many of the same Iraqis who might not be terribly upset by attacks on foreign soldiers will be infuriated by attacks on Iraqi policemen and soldiers who represent a Democratic Iraqi government), and Iraq will start to really make big strides in the right direction.

Now, have things gone as well as we thought they would? No, but there is no such thing as a "Rebuilding Conquered Nations For Dummies" book on the shelf. You do the best you can, you learn from your mistakes, and you try to get it right. It may not be easy, but nothing worth doing ever is.

Last but not least, is helping Iraq become a free nation worth the cost and the bloodshed? Yes, it is.

By paying the price to help Iraq today, we're helping to make the world safer for our kids. That's something the world should have learned after watching how the poorly handled aftermath of WW1 helped lead to the horrors of WW2 or even how refusing to finish the job in the Gulf War led to more than a decade of problems with Iraq.

Furthermore, speaking of WW2 and its aftermath, is anyone sorry that we helped Japan and Germany rebuild? What if we had lost a thousand troops in post-war Germany or Japan, would it have been smart to have pulled out? Of course not, and it would be just as dumb to pull out of Iraq today. A free Iraq will likely be a future ally, or at least not a warmongering enemy. Moreover, if Iraq becomes free, it's entirely possible that it'll create a "reverse domino effect" that will encourage the people of other nations in the region like Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Syria to demand Democracy as well. Helping Iraq become a free and democratic state has the potential to be the most earthshaking event in the region since the Crusades and working to help make that happen is a smart move.

So folks, there are always going to be things we could have done better or problems for people to complain about, but I'm confident that we're doing the right thing, for the right reasons, at the right time in Iraq and I am proud of how George Bush and our troops in Iraq have handled this tough situation.

Hat tip to Strange Cosmos for the graphic.

Hey you! Did you know that if you live in America, you live in a fascist country? You probably didn't know that! Lucky for you that the brave dissenters at the Democratic Underground are willing to speak the truth to power so that you'll stay informed...lol, oh please!

Here are a few comments from what I found to be an unintentionally hilarious DU thread called "When Fascism Comes to America, it Will Be Embraced by FOX News" that'll show you just how out of touch with the reality some of today's lefties are...

in_cog_ni_to: "Fox already DOES support fascism. It's here, we're living it."

RevRussel: "Fascism is already here-all we need for this truth is the name United Fascist States of Amerika."

Flubadubya: "Certainly not just FOX...CNN gets worse by the day. All these news outlets (except maybe CBS) are on a fast track to fascist hell. CBS is a good example of what happens to a news organization that is now trying to stand up to them. All the others are calling for the head of Dan Rather and the complete castigation of CBS news. I have never seen anything like this in my life."

AmerDem: "It now time To let unaware America know about Fascism and how this adminstration is following every trick in the book to seal the deal. I'm not sure if local ( or national ) newspapers would allow letters to the editor showing this but it's worth a try!"

Media_Lies_Daily: "Why is it that most Americans...even most posters on DU...cling to...the idea that Fascism has NOT YET arrived in America?? How is it possible for an author to get an article published that is so completely CLUELESS??

5. WHERE THE HECK ARE YOU GOING TO BE ON THIS COMING ELECTION DAY??"

Unperson 309: "I'll be in the Polling booths...and when they come to "get me", I'll be dead on the floor before they can touch me.

Better a "38 sandwich" than the continuing ideological @ss-rape we've endured for so long."

sffreeways: It can happen here. too late, it has happened here. The moment to wait for is when the response begins. That's when things get very very ugly and very very dangerous. Not just our troops that are in danger anymore, it's everyone of us too now.

Remember Sue Neiderer !"

Dangerman: "If Hitler were alive today... He'd kiss George Bush in the cheek!"

A CBS News investigation has confirmed that the Vietnam War lasted at least five years longer than it should have solely because of President George W. Bush. People who knew Mr. Bush at the time have revealed to us that, while collapsed drunk in the basement of a Yale frat house, the would-be president - in addition to providing a complete arsenal of weapons to the enemy - caused the collapse of the Dutch tulip market in 1636, spread syphilis throughout northern New Zealand and wrote the outline for a screenplay that would lead to the Jennifer Lopez-Ben Affleck film "Gigli"…

In other news, according to CBS News sources, Democratic presidential challenger rescued 300 babies from a burning building while giving a speech on how he would eliminate the national deficit, bring about everlasting world peace and end male-pattern baldness all within the first week of his administration…

And this just in, a new poll conducted by CBS News of women aged 18-25 with huge breasts have voted this reporter the sexiest man in America…

Meanwhile in sports, sources have informed CBS News that the Montreal Expos, led by the Icelandic singing sensation Bjork, continue to hold a commanding lead in the National League East and are on a pace to win their third straight World Series title…

And finally in weather, officials have told CBS News that no major hurricanes have been reported in Florida or elsewhere along the Gulf Coast in the past month.

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

I thought some of the bloggers out there might find these 11 basic rules to be of use or at least may find them to be a good jumping off point for debate about blogger etiquette...

-- If you mention another blog, actually create a hyperlink to it. Simply typing out the URL -- example: rightwingnews.com -- is for dead tree publications, not blogs.

-- Don't copy an entire post from another blog without permission. They wrote the post so they deserve the credit & the traffic.

-- Since there is no way to excerpt a graphic from another page, it is acceptable to put a graphic created by another blog on your site. However, make sure to give them credit for their work and a link back.

-- If you run across a story at another blog, it's a good idea to let people know that blog was where you originally ran across the story. Those little "hat tips" may be a small thing, but people appreciate them.

-- Sending out promo emails for things you've written is perfectly fine. However, you should make sure it's something worth looking at and don't flood people with emails. There's nothing more annoying than getting almost daily emails from bloggers promoting run-of-mill posts. If you're going to promote something, it should be worth promoting.

-- It's OK for a new blogger to send out an email letting other bloggers know that he exists. However, if you're going to send out a "take a look at my new blog email," put in some real effort first. By that, I mean make sure all of your links work and have up at least a couple of weeks worth of posts. If you're asking people to look at your blog and there are only a few short posts on a half-finished blog, you're wasting people's time.

-- Avoid posting the email addresses of people who send you hate mail or who are rude to you. Doing that just sets them up for harassment by your readers that you're going to get blamed for.

-- Don't do a trackback to someone's blog if you're not actually linking to the post. That's called trackback spamming and it's about as welcome as viagra spam.

-- Speaking of spamming, if you're going to post a link to your blog in someone's comment section, at least make sure it's on topic. Furthermore, how about adding something relevant to the post they just made? Just slapping links and excerpts from your blog in another comments section is annoying. I've actually banned people from my comment section for doing that.

-- There's debate about whether it's OK to make substantive changes to posts after they've gone live. Personally, I see no problem with making spelling or grammar corrections at any point. Furthermore, IMO, it's OK to correct inaccuracies BEFORE they've been pointed out in your comments section or on another blog. However, if you make a change AFTER someone has pointed it out, without acknowledging the change somehow, expect to be accused of trying to cover-up your mistake.

-- Don't take disputes in the virtual world into the real world. In other words, don't post people's personal information online, don't get involved in their home life, and don't try to get them in trouble where they work. That sort of thing sparks a lot of bad feelings and not just from the people who are directly involved.

-- Robert Novak claims anonymous sources are saying that the Bush administration plans to cut and run from Iraq next year...

"Well-placed sources in the administration are confident Bush's decision will be to get out (of Iraq). They believe that is the recommendation of his national security team and would be the recommendation of second-term officials. An informed guess might have Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, Paul Wolfowitz as defense secretary and Stephen Hadley as national security adviser. According to my sources, all would opt for a withdrawal.

Getting out now would not end expensive U.S. reconstruction of Iraq, and certainly would not stop the fighting. Without U.S. troops, the civil war cited as the worst-case outcome by the recently leaked National Intelligence Estimate would be a reality. It would then take a resolute president to stand aside while Iraqis battle it out."

This is just complete bullocks. There is absolutely no way that the Bush administration, after going through everything we've gone through in Iraq, is going to shrug their shoulders, walk away, and let the country descend into civil war, especially given that the Iraqis will be able to handle their own security next year. Not only would conservatives turn on the Bush administration if they did something like that, it would undercut the entire purpose of staying in Iraq after the war to begin with. It's just not going to happen.

Now if you're asking yourself, "Who do I believe, Hawkins or Novak's anonymous sources," let me remind you of another "big scoop" Novak had back in May. Back then Novak said,

"Last week, I talked to Republican members of Congress, GOP fund-raisers and contributors, defense consultants and even one senior official of a coalition partner. The clear consensus was that Rumsfeld had to go. ''There must be a neck cut,'' said the foreign official, ''and there is only one neck of choice.''

...To well-informed outsiders, Rumsfeld's fate seems assured. Stratfor, the private intelligence service, reported last week: ''The amazing thing is not that the White House is preparing Rumsfeld for hanging but that it has taken so long.'' The report added that Rumsfeld ''consistently managed to get the strategic and organizational questions wrong."

My response?

"That just isn't going to happen. Not only is the idea of holding the Secretary of Defense responsible because a few yahoos at Abu Ghraib went way over the line and abused some prisoners in their care (is not only) completely ludicrous on its face, it would be a horrific political mistake for a number of reasons.

....In short, don't buy into this. Even if Bush truly isn't happy with Rummy, he won't get rid of him until AFTER the election, if at all...."

Who was right and who was wrong back then? It's the same person who'll be right on this too....

-- Teresa Heinz Kerry has a reputation of contributing to radical causes, but hasn't released her taxes. John Kerry has had prostate cancer surgery, but hasn't released his medical records. Despite numerous challenges to his record in Vietnam, John Kerry has refused to release his military records and has even been caught lying about it. So where is the press howling for Kerry to come clean? You know the answer -- liberal bias.

-- In my latest column, I said the following about CBS...

"Well, to be quite frank, merely saying that CBS was "duped" is being charitable.

CBS interviewed the wife & son of the supposed source of the document and both told them that they believed the documents were fake, but they were ignored. Dean Roome, who is now openly saying the documents are forged, was also interviewed by CBS, but was discounted reportedly because he was "pretty pro-Bush". "Bobby Hodges, a former Texas Air National Guard general whom 60 Minutes claimed had authenticated the memos" was only read the memos and was never told that they weren't handwritten. Once he found out that crucial fact, he too questioned the legitimacy of the memos.

On top of all of that, Linda James & Emily Will, document examiners hired by CBS to authenticate the memos, both declined to do so. Will even went so far as to say that,

"I told (CBS) that all the questions I was asking them on Tuesday night, they were going to be asked by hundreds of other document examiners on Thursday if they ran that story."

Given all of that, at best CBS must have known that there was a good chance that the documents weren't real and at worst, they believed the memos were fake and hoped that they would be shielded from scrutiny because the documents were from an anonymous source."

Well since that column went live, things have gotten much worse for CBS. We've now definitively found out what many people suspected, that Dan Rather's "unimpeachable source" for these documents was Bill Burkett, a partisan, anti-Bush Democrat, who has had mental breakdowns and has been claiming for years -- with no proof -- that Bush's National Guard documents were discarded.

Worse yet, Bill Burkett told CBS that someone else provided the documents to him. Not only did CBS not even bother to get the original documents, they never even followed up with the person Burkett claimed was the "original source". Now, Burkett is admitting that he lied about the source. Big surprise there, huh? Were I a betting man, I'd guess that Burkett punched up the documents himself and then claimed he got them from another source so that he'd have plausible deniability if this very situation ever came up.

Now that we know that CBS got these documents from Burkett, I see no need to pull any punches. What Dan Rather and CBS have done here is one step up from the way Jayson Blair behaved. They took "secondhand" documents from what they knew was a very unreliable person, made no real effort to check out the original source, and then ran with the memos even though the preponderance of evidence that their own experts had compiled suggested that they were fakes. Then when they got called on it, they tried to hunker down and weather out the storm, rather than admit the obvious, that they were peddling forgeries. As far as I'm concerned, everybody connected with this story, Rather, Mapes, everyone who was involved in putting these documents on the air, deserves to be unceremoniously fired for ethics violations. Then CBS should apologize to their viewers, the Killian family, and the Bush administration for what they've done. Nothing less will restore their credibility..

-- Here's another quote about this whole mess that just blows my mind,

"Burkett told USA TODAY that he had agreed to turn over the documents to CBS if the network would help arrange a conversation with the Kerry campaign.

The network's effort to place Burkett in contact with a top Democratic official raises ethical questions about CBS' handling of material potentially damaging to the Republican president in the midst of an election. This "poses a real danger to the potential credibility of a news organization," said Aly Colón, a news ethicist at the Poynter Institute for Media Studies."

Wait a second...the Kerry campaign gave access to Bill Burkett in order to help CBS break an anti-Bush story? There is your direct tie to the Kerry campaign in black and white. They colluded with CBS in order to help bring these fake memos to light.

So what else did CBS and the Kerry campaign discuss? Ben Barnes, who was interviewed by CBS, is in a new Democratic commercial about Bush's National Guard Service. Was CBS involved in that? Was that commercial timed to coincide with the anti-Bush story that CBS was putting out?

And I thought this story might be getting ready to peter out. Now, it looks like it's just about to get really JUICY!

*** Update #1***: Here's another bizarre twist to the Burkett/memogate story...

"Burkett now maintains that the source of the papers was Lucy Ramirez, who he says phoned him from Houston in March to offer the documents. USA TODAY has been unable to locate Ramirez.

An acquaintance of Burkett, who he said could corroborate his story, said he was at the livestock show on March 3. The woman, who asked that her name not be used, said Burkett asked if he could put papers inside a box she had at the livestock show. Often, she said, friends ask to store papers in her box that verify their purchases at the livestock auction. She said she did not know the nature of the papers Burkett gave her, and he did not say anything about them."

Someone call Agent Mulder, there's obviously a conspiracy afoot! Here's another interesting detail about Dan Rather's "unimpeachable source" that's worth mentioning...

"Burkett's emotions varied widely in the interviews. One session ended when Burkett suffered a violent seizure and collapsed in his chair."

And Dan Rather thinks this guy is a rock solid source?????

<----- John Kerry throws around the swine epidermis or as you common folk call it, a "pigskin".

The pic is from the latest Republican 527 group, Football Fans For Truth, which also notes that,

"When Kerry threw the first pitch at a Red Sox-Yankees game, he did not throw from the pitcher's mound -- yet still bounced the ball before it reached home plate. He then blamed his namby-pamby throw on the catcher, a National Guard soldier and Iraq war veteran: "I held back," Kerry told reporters. "He was very nervous. I tried to lob it gently." Conclusion: John Kerry throws a baseball worse than a girl."

"This is too important an issue for us to just sit on the sidelines," said Panagopoulos. "After watching one to many Kerry sports gaffes, we realized that we needed to get in the game. I mean, this is a person who probably prefers Astro-Turf to real."

Lol, now that's funny stuff!

CBS news anchor Dan Rather is America's most trusted news anchor to forge documents or assist in forgery, according to a new poll.

The survey, conducted by independent researchers, concluded the American people “overwhelmingly” approve Rather’s forgery skills over his two main counterparts, ABC anchor Peter Jennings and NBC anchor Tom Brokaw.

Poll results showed 82% preferred Rather to “assist in forgery,” compared to just 11% for Jennings and 7% for Brokaw.

“Danny Boy at least tried to forge,” said one anonymous survey participant, referring to Rather’s rather shady activity in President Bush’s disputed National Guard records. “Brokaw probably wouldn’t even attempt it, and Pete lacks Dan’s gravitas in such matters. Pete seems too...honest for forgery.”

CBS released a statement that said, “When it comes to honesty and integrity in forgery, the American people trust Dan Rather.”

Poll researchers stressed that the results don’t portray Rather as “America’s Most Trusted News Anchor,” but “The Guy 82% Of American News Junkies Picked To Forge Documents.”

“A slight difference between those titles, don’t you think,” one researcher said.

Researchers also warned that Rather shouldn’t be trusted in delivering the news, based on a report yesterday in which Rather said, “Hurricane Isaac pounded the Pacific coast of Idaho for the third straight day.”

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

Every time I leave the apartment, my dog Patton gives me the "Come back Shane, come back look" out the window...

Look at that sad little face. Poor little doggie...

"You couldn't have a starker contrast between the multiple layers of check and balances [at '60 Minutes'] and a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas writing." -- Jonathan Klein

That mocking quote by Jonathan Klein has been adopted by the blogosphere and turned into an anthem by many of the same bloggers who have gleefully -- and might I add successfully -- dissected Dan Rather's fake memos like a high school science whiz carving away at a frog.

However, the snarky nature of the Klein quote has obscured a larger truth: that a network like CBS shouldn't have needed bloggers -- pajama clad or not -- to have pointed out that their story was less credible than a column about ethics in journalism written by Jayson Blair. CBS has an immense budget, a large, experienced, staff, as well as all the contacts & resources that they needed to determine the truth of the story before it ever hit the airwaves.

So how did they get fooled? Well, to be quite frank, merely saying that CBS was "duped" is being charitable. (Cont)

Mark Dubbin, the author of "Shadow Patriot" bought another main page ad on RWN to get the word out about his book. Here's the description of it from Barnes & Noble...

"The events of 9/11 affected many things in New York and the Mafia was no exception. Business suffered for Don Remondini after the attack, but he wasn't about to let it go. The cowards who cost him would receive a message from the Family if he had anything to say about it. They would think twice about their actions in the future. That much was certain.

Jim Pearce is Don Remondini's chief of security. As an Ex-Special Forces sniper, discharged from duty with diabetes, he is assigned to send al-Qaeda a powerful message from the Family. Operating outside the law, and using his CIA contacts, Shadow Patriot is a web of action and intrigue where the guilty will be made to pay, and payback can be a b*tch!"

I've done ads for this book before and one of RWN's readers had actually read the book. Jay said the following,

"I bought it after seeing the link to it on Amazon posted on here last time. The book itself is very short, only about 110 pages I believe. It was a little far fetched, but all in all a very good read."

Here's what a couple of intelligent people on Amazon had to say about the book,

Reviewer: A reader from Las Cruces, NM United States

A wonderful story taking a different approach to the effects of 9/11, and how it was dealt with. Rather than sit back and complain about what happened on that eventful day, a plan was set to take out a terrorist cell. Neat idea and easy flowing writing. Makes for a good, sunny afternoon read.

Reviewer: nicothefabulous from Littleton, CO United States

In a world where justice can be hard to come by, sometimes you have to make your own. Reminds me a bit of The Rocketeer, with the FBI agents and Mafia guys fighting the Nazis side-by-side. Maybe more people with the financial means to do so should take note of this story! I want to see the movie. A classic tale of good old-fashioned American payback.

This book is on my wish list so feel free to buy a copy for me and one for yourself....

You can purchase the Shadow Patriot by clicking here.