It's the holiday season and I'm going to be taking advantage of it for the rest of the week. First thing tomorrow morning, I'm heading out on vacation and won't be returning until Sunday. That means the next update of RWN will be Monday the 29th.

While I'm gone, how about checking out my current advertisers? They support RWN, so how about at least giving a look?

The All Right
Light Calvary
Metrospy, Politically Conservative Apparel, Gifts And Accessories
RightWingStuff
Thank You Tony Blair
VitaminUSA

That's all for now. I'm going to go ahead and pack and get ready to head out. Everybody have a great Thanksgiving!

Since I'm going out of town, I figured I'd give you some retro RWN to chew on. I decided to focus on posts that explain conservative thinking on a number of issues. Enjoy....

3 Illegal Immigration Myths
9 Ways To Make America A Better Place To Live
A Conversation About Abortion
Answering 20 Frequently Asked Questions About Conservatism
Coming To The Obvious Conclusion About Homelessness
Here's How We Should Be Handling Illegal Immigrants
How Do We Get To A Balanced Budget?
I Practice Speciesism
I'm Not A Fan Of School Breakfast & Lunch Programs
Libertarian Blinders On Drugs
Making The Case For A Federal Marriage Amendment
Making The Case For The Loser-Pays System
Nuclear Naivete -- We Can't Just "Get Rid Of Nukes"
On Anti-Intellectualism
Outsourcing Is Nothing To Be Worried About
Rules Of Thumb
The Social Security IOU
Take My Word For It, Jews Don't Rule The World
Thank You Big Corporations!
The Conservative Thinking Behind The War On Terrorism
The Best Way to Fight Global Poverty
The Government Should Only Be Putting Out Documents In English
The Hypocrisy and Ineffectiveness Of The CEO Price Cap
The Problem With Our Education System Is Not Money
The Problem With Our Schools Isn't The Money
The Problem With The Minimum Wage
The Questions Conspiracy Theorists Need To Ask Themselves
Welfare For Seniors
What One Conservative Believes...
What's So Great About A Flat Tax?
Why Not Buy Prescription Drugs From Other Countries?
Why States Rights Don't Currently Matter When It Comes To Gay Marriage
Why We Need A Balanced Budget Amendment
Would School Vouchers Lead To Overcrowding?

It's almost time to do the third annual "Twenty Most Annoying Liberals In The United States For 2004". While I'll be making all the final selections in that article, I am open to suggestions.

So if you have anyone you think should be included, post their names in the comment section along with why you think they should make the list. A snappy quote from them wouldn't hurt either if you happen to have one on hand. Do keep in mind that only things they've done in 2004 will qualify them to make the list.

PS: Here are the previous two lists just to give you an idea of what these articles are like...

-- The Twenty Most Annoying Liberals In The United States For 2002
-- The 2nd Annual Twenty Most Annoying Liberals In The United States -- The 2003 Edition

There's no conservative pundit more quotable than Ann Coulter which is why I compiled my favorite 25 quotes from Ms. Coulter, in order. Enjoy!

25) "The New York Times review blamed (Kitty) Kelley's gossip mongering on "a cultural climate in which gossip and innuendo thrive on the Internet." Kelley has been writing these books for decades, so apparently, like the Texas Air National Guard, Kelley was on the Internet – and being influenced by it – back in the '70s. As I remember it, for the past few years it has been the Internet that keeps dissecting and discrediting the gossip and innuendo that the major media put out."

24) "Liberals become indignant when you question their patriotism, but simultaneously work overtime to give terrorists a cushion for the next attack and laugh at dumb Americans who love their country and hate the enemy."

23) "The leaders of the modern Democratic Party, Hannity says, have made excuses for evil for so long that they cannot recognize evil anymore. The closest thing to it in their vocabulary would be "someone who wears fur." And of course, they recognize evil in the person of "George W. Bush," whom they see as the very essence of evil. In fact, Bush may be the only force of evil in the world liberals haven't wanted to appease."

22) "Reagan took an approach to the Cold War dramatically different from any other US President. To wit, he thought we should win. This was a fresh concept. At the time, it was widely ridiculed as a dangerous alteration of US policy. Only after it worked was Reagan's dangerous foreign policy recast as merely a continuation of the policies of his predecessors."

21) "While the form of treachery varies slightly from case to case, liberals always manage to take the position that most undermines American security."

20) "Even if corners were cut, (Iran-Contra) was a brilliant scheme. There is no possibility that anyone in any Democratic administration would have gone to such lengths to fund anti-Communist forces. When Democrats scheme from the White House, it's to cover up the President's affair with an intern. When Republicans scheme, it's to support embattled anti-Communist freedom fighters sold out by the Democrats."

19) "Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said any assumption that the US would not use force against North Korea would be a mistake. Such bellicosity frightens liberals. The left's reaction to nutty despots is: he might hit me, so I'll be nice. Rumsfeld's idea is: He'll hit me? Maybe I'll hit him. The beauty of that approach cannot be denied."

18) "The reason any conservative's failing is always major news is that it allows liberals to engage in their very favorite taunt: Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy is the only sin that really inflames them. Inasmuch as liberals have no morals, they can sit back and criticize other people for failing to meet the standards that liberals simply renounce. It's an intriguing strategy. By openly admitting to being philanderers, draft dodgers, liars, weasels and cowards, liberals avoid ever being hypocrites."

17) "For fifty years, America's foreign policy failures have not been problems of "national dialogue" or "preventative" action or the national psyche. There is one simple problem: Democrats can't handle foreign policy. You could almost forgive the Democrats for their spectacular record of failure in foreign policy. But then they have the audacity to cite their own derelict handling of the military to argue that it is always a fool's errand to deploy troops in defense of the nation. Remember Vietnam!"

16) "(Sheryl) Crow explained that the 'best way to solve problems is to not have enemies.' War solves that problem too: We won't have any enemies because we're going to kill them. Crow warned of 'huge karmic retributions that will follow.' She seemed not to understand that America going to war is huge karmic retribution. They killed three thousand Americans and now they're going to die."

15) "Liberals said Reagan was dangerous and his rhetoric scary. They ridiculed him as an idiot for believing the Soviet Union could be toppled. They opposed him on every front -- strengthening the military, aiding and arming anti-Communist rebels around the world, invading Grenada, preparing to win a nuclear war, building a nuclear shield, and waging a spiritual crusade against Soviet totalitarianism. Reagan said the Soviet Union was an evil empire and we would prevail. He called the ball, the shot, and the pocket, and he won the game. But now we're supposed to believe he was lucky. Liberals lie about Reagan's victory because when Reagan won the Cold War, he proved them wrong on everything they had done and said throughout the Cold War."

14) "'Stupid' means one thing: "threatening to the interests of the Democratic Party." The more Conservative the Republican, the more vicious and hysterical the attacks on his intelligence will be."

13) "(Mel) Gibson didn't insert Jews into ("The Passion of the Christ") for some Machiavellian, racist reason. Christ was a Jew crucified by Romans at the request of other Jews in Jerusalem. I suppose if Gibson had moved the story to suburban Cleveland and portrayed Republican logging executives crucifying Christ, the left would calm down. But it simply didn't happen that way."

12) "Democrats always assure us that deterrence will work, but when the time comes to deter, they're against it."

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

10) "Looking at the line-up of speakers at the (Democratic National) Convention, I have developed the 7-11 challenge: I will quit making fun of, for example, Dennis Kucinich, if he can prove he can run a 7-11 properly for 8 hours. We'll even let him have an hour or so of preparation before we open up. Within 8 hours, the money will be gone, the store will be empty, and he'll be explaining how three 11-year olds came in and asked for the money and he gave it to them."

9) "Much of the left's hate speech bears greater similarity to a psychological disorder than to standard political discourse. The hatred is blinding, producing logical contradictions that would be impossible to sustain were it not for the central element faith plays in the left's new religion. The basic tenet of their faith is this: Maybe they were wrong on facts and policies, but they are good and conservatives are evil. You almost want to give it to them. It's all they have left."

8) "No matter what the evidence, liberals insist that only their tender ministrations are capable of calming murderous dictators. Negotiation and engagement are said to "work" because, after Democrats spend years dillydallying with lunatic despots who threaten America, eventually a Republican president comes in and threatens aggressive military action. In a fascinating fifty-year pattern -- completely indiscernible to liberals -- murderous despots succumb to "engagement" shortly after a Republican president threatens to bomb them. This allows liberals to hail years of impotent negotiation and engagement as a foreign policy 'win'."

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

6) "If it were true that conservatives were racist, sexist, homophobic, fascist, stupid, inflexible, angry, and self-righteous, shouldn't their arguments be easy to deconstruct? Someone who is making a point out of anger, ideology, inflexibility, or resentment would presumably construct a flimsy argument. So why can't the argument itself be dismembered rather than the speaker's personal style or hidden motives? Why the evasions?"

5) "Hearing politicians tell us "we" can't "afford" a tax cut is like listening to a glutton tell you he can't "afford" a diet. In no other context do people talk about "paying for" money they don't have. I can't pay for your refusal to give me money because I need a yacht."

4) "Liberals hate religion because politics is a religion substitute for liberals and they can't stand the competition."

3) "Not exactly smashing stereotypes of liberals as mincing pantywaists, the left's entire contribution to the war effort thus far has been to whine."

2) "The common wisdom holds that "both parties" have to appeal to the extremes during the primary and then move to the center for the general election. To the contrary, both parties run for office as conservatives. Once they have fooled the voters and are safely in office, Republicans sometimes double-cross the voters. Democrats always do."

1) "In the corporeal world, international law is whatever the United States and Great Britain say it is."

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.

You can purchase the Shadow Patriot by clicking here.

"This is the meaning of Mr. Bush's "bring 'em on" taunt from the Roosevelt Room on Wednesday, when he was quizzed about the "growing threat to U.S. forces" on the ground in Iraq. It should have been obvious that no U.S. President actually relishes having his soldiers take casualties. What the media, and U.S. Democrats affect not to grasp, is that the soldiers are now replacing targets that otherwise would be provided by defenceless civilians, both in Iraq and at large. The sore thumb of the U.S. occupation -- and it is a sore thumb equally to Baathists and Islamists, compelling their response -- is not a mistake. It is carefully hung flypaper." -- David Warren

From Newsmax,

"Terrorists battling U.S. troops in places like Fallujah, Mosul and Ramadi include Abu Musab al Zarqawi's mass murderers, holdouts from Saddam's Baathist regime, Iranian sympathizers - and a handful of French nationals.

"Authorities estimate that around a dozen Frenchmen of North African or Arab background have traveled to Iraq to join the insurgency," reports the BBC."

Now if we have radical French Islamists who want to hurt Americans, where are we better off taking them on? In the streets of Mosul or Falluajah, where they'll be fighting the best soldiers ever to walk the earth? Or would we rather have them walking around in New York, LA, Chicago, or Dallas, looking at landmarks, theaters, and daycare centers, deciding at their leisure where to attack?

The more of these terrorists who die in Iraq, the less of them that will live to make it to an American office building, theater, or daycare center...

There are different reasons for having "rules of war". Some of them include:

1) The Golden Rule: What you do to the enemy, they will do to you. For example, if you torture prisoners, you can expect the enemy to do the same to your men.

2) Protection of your civilians: By wearing uniforms for example, you distinguish your men from your civilians, ostensibly in order to keep them out of the fighting.

3) Making it easier for the enemy to surrender: If being captured by your forces means torture at worst and a quick death at best for the enemy, then they will be much less likely to surrender. However, if they know they'll receive decent treatment, they'll be less likely to fight to the finish.

4) Your own moral values: William Tecumseh Sherman was right...

"War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is the sooner it will be over."

...but there are certain things that are almost impossible to stomach for civilized people. For example, I don't want our men interrogating terrorists by smashing their toes with a ball-peen hammer because that's just not something American soldiers should be doing under any circumstances.

All of this begs a question: what happens when you're fighting opponents that recognize no "rules of war"? The terrorists and "insurgents" we're fighting have made it clear our captured soldiers can expect no mercy, our civilians are targets, and there is no depth that they will not sink to.

This produces real world dilemmas that most people don't give proper consideration.

Take ambulances in the Palestinian territories. Ideally, you'd let them go where they please, as quickly as possible so they can tend to the wounded. However, terrorists have been caught using them to transport men and weaponry. So aren't you a fool if you don't stop and search them?

In Iraq, terrorists/"insurgents" have waved white flags and then continued fighting. They've also booby trapped bodies and used suicide bombers. Given that, should we not be asking if it's worth it to allow the enemy to surrender? Since there's certainly no ethical problem with killing the "insurgents" whether they try to surrender or not given their behavior, the only question is which will save more American, Coalition, and innocent Iraqi lives: taking Iraqi prisoners or killing them all?

What it comes down to is that nobody, absolutely nobody we're going to be fighting, is going to be treating our troops in accordance with the Geneva Convention, which was designed for "gentlemen's wars" between European nations. Since that's the case, I think it's time to set aside the Geneva Convention, which was outdated the moment it was written down, and set up our own rules based on the real world situations we face.

Since Rolling Stone put out their 500 greatest songs of all time, I thought it would be a good time to put out my own top 50 songs of all-time. Incidentally, I notice that there's absolutely no overlap whatsoever between their top 50 and mine =D

50) Melt With You: Modern English
49) Wild Boys: Duran Duran
48) Toxic: Britney Spears
47) Song 2: Blur
46) Paint It Black: The Rolling Stones
45) Allstar: Smashmouth
44) Kiss From a Rose: Seal
43) Beer for my Horses: Toby Keith
42) Who Wants to Live Forever?: Queen
41) Sweet Home Alabama: Lynard Skynard
40) Still Standin': Elton John
39) Touch of Grey: Grateful Dead
38) I Choose: The Offspring
37) Die MF Die: Dope
36) Battle Without Honor or Humanity: Hotei Tomayasu
35) Stay the Night: Chicago
34) American Bad@ss: Kid Rock
33) Warriors of the World: Manowar
32) Eye of the Tiger: Survivor
31) I Hope You Dance: Lee Ann Womack
30) Clumsy: Our Lady Peace
29) Shout at the Devil: Motley Crue
28) Let the Bodies Hit the Floor: Drowing Pool
27) Never Gonna Stop: Rob Zombie
26) Black #1: Type O Negative
25) Fun Lovin' Criminals: Scooby Snacks
24) Strange Attraction: The Cure
23) What you lookin' At?: Uncle Kracker
22) Bulls on Parade: Rage Against the Machine
21) Landslide: The Dixie Chicks
20) Rollin' With My Homies: Coolio
19) I Am the Bullgod: Kid Rock
18) Lovesong: Tesla
17) Cock The Hammer: Cypress Hill
16) Gangster of Love: Geto Boys
15) Jump Around: House of Pain
14) Head Like A Hole: Nine Inch Nails
13) I Love You Always Forever: Donna Lewis
12) You Shook Me All Night Long: AC/DC
11) Cum on feel the Noize: Quiet Riot
10) Lovin Every Minute of it: Loverboy
9) Hokus Pokus: Insane Clown Posse
8) Hey Man Nice Shot: Filter
7) Down with the Sickness: Disturbed
6) Back in Black: AC/DC
5) Hurt: Johnny Cash
4) The Highwayman: Willie Nelson, Waylon Jennings, Johnny Cash, & Kris Kristofferson
3) Just Like Heaven: The Cure
2) Faith Of The Heart: Russell Watson
1) My Sacrifice: Creed

Although there was a good buzz around the film, I must admit that I wasn't intending to go see "The Incredibles" until I read what Stuart Klawans had to say about the film in The Nation,

"The reason, according to (Brad) Bird, is that the Parrs' strange talents are rooted in normal family traits. Fathers are supposed to be strong, so Bob can bench-press a freight engine. Mothers are always being pulled ten ways at once, so Helen is elastic. Young Violet can become invisible, as teenage girls sometimes want to do, and Dash is just a wonderfully energetic little boy, ratcheted up to 200 mph.

The family is the foundation of our society. Freedom is on the march."

Klawans wasn't the only person to see conservatism and visions of Ayn Rand dancing in his head as he watched the movie and I figured if it's a kid's movie that liberals don't like, I'm there!

However, I must admit that I was a bit surprised that anyone looked at this movie and thought it to be conservative or even political at all.

Admittedly, the movie does start with lawyers suing all the super-heroes out of business, but let's face it, that's exactly what would happen in these days and times. I mean let's say a monster from the planet Quaglar is trying to destroy New York City and Superman shows up to save the day. But, in the process of defeating the monster, he tosses it through a building. Well, thanks for saving us Superman, but somebody still has to pay for the building, right? And who are you going to send the bill to, the monster? He doesn't even live on this planet!

On the other hand, Superman shows up for work at the Hall of Justice. You know where he is and let's not forget we're talking about a guy who can literally squeeze chunks of coal until they turn into diamonds, so he has the money right? That's why if Superman were real, he wouldn't be able to foil a bank robbery without getting served with a half-dozen subpoenas.

In this case, Mr. Incredible is sued by a man he saves from committing suicide as well as a number of train passengers who were injured when Mr. Incredible suddenly stopped their train from plunging off a damaged trestle. Is that supposed to represent some sort of anti-lawyer sentiment? Personally, I don't think so. It's just an accurate reflection of what trial lawyers do in these days and times.

There were also a few Randian echoes in the movie as the Incredibles complained about being forced by society to be mediocre, but that's to be expected given that they were forced to hide their abilities. And if you REALLY want to stretch it, you could also note that the Incredibles are a nuclear family with a work-at-home mom, a dad who supports the family, and three kids, none of whom is smarter than or more enlightened than their parents.

So was the movie "conservative"? Not overtly so, but one must wonder if all super-heros are conservative in days and times where Yasser Arafat is a "hero" and George W. Bush is "another Hitler".

Consider that in these movies, you have "good guys" and you have "bad guys". The good guys don't look at the bad guys and go, "gee it's society's fault that they are the way they are" or "they probably had a rough childhood," they stop them from harming other people. And how do they stop them you ask? Via a "summit" or an "arbitration hearing"? No, they meet them in combat and usually -- although it of course depends on the super hero -- violently beat them into submission without getting permission from any "controlling legal authority" before they do. That's not exactly something Jacques Chirac and Kofi Annan would approve of, is it?

In any case, that's enough time spent on that issue, let's get to the mini-review.

This was a gripping, fun, movie with an intelligent plot that kept me interested for the entire hour and fifty-five minutes. The characters were easy to relate to and while the pacing of the movie wasn't perfect, they did a reasonably good job of keep things moving.

Furthermore, as a I alluded to earlier, the characters in many respects have very normal, ordinary lives. Mom and dad debate over how to handle the kids, dad is frustrated with his job and wants to relive his glory days, mom worries needlessly that dad might be interested in another woman. Meanwhile, their young son Dash wants to play sports at school and Violet is attracted to a boy at school but is too unsure of herself to talk to him. They may be super-heroes but their problems are so common that you almost feel as if, "I know these people".

That's part of the reason why the action scenes were particularly effective, because the film makers were so good at conveying a constant sense of danger to these people that you like. The bad guys go for the throat in this movie and not only are they quite dangerous and capable of killing the good guys, they actually do kill several super heroes in the course of the movie. So you always feel as if one of the characters could buy it during any of the fight scenes. That's not something that happens in most super-hero movies.

All in all, it made for an excellent movie where you can feel very comfortable taking the entire family. Personally, I'd give the movie a thumbs up, even if you're an adult without any kids...

Conservative Life is North America's newest conservative portal.

Featuring MSM news, blogs, forums, and Conservative Life's customizable Blog Watch and Breaking Blogs tools.

Share your opinions on the following forum topics...

Matthew Sheperd was not killed because he was gay
How many muslims are fundamentalists?
Why Europeans love the United Nations
Post your favorite "Sorry Everyone" photo here...