The mainstream media has seen fit to show us all sorts of images from the war in Iraq: terrorists desecrating American bodies, beheadings, soldiers shooting wounded insurgents, Abu Ghraib pics, you name it. Given that, I don't think it's inappropriate to post this video that I've gotten my hands on.

I'm told this is an Iraqi insurgent with a rifle vs. what looks to be a TOW anti-tank weapon, although I have no way of indepently verifying that. It's not gory, but the insurgent does die quite violently and if watching that will bother you, I'd recommend that you avoid this 1MB .mpeg video. You have been warned about what this video is like so don't email me and complain if you click on it and don't like what you see.

Insurgent vs. TOW anti-tank weapon

Given the type of graphic garbage they typically play in an effort to incite people against Americans and Israelis, I think it would be a great idea for Jihad TV, AKA Al-Jazeera, to play this video. Since it's the favorite station of all the radical Islamists out there, it'll give them a good idea of how they may end up if they try to go after American soldiers and stop democracy in Iraq.

The fine folks over at Premiere Speakers Bureau have hooked me up with some autographed books to give away. If you're looking for great speakers like Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Oliver North, Neil Cavuto, Michael Reagan, Zell Miller, David Limbaugh, Dick Morris, Ben Shapiro, Vince Lombardi, Peggy Noonan, Neal Boortz, & G. Gordon Liddy for an event, Premiere can arrange it for a fee

Now on to the autographed books. I'm going to be doing a number of different contests, from now until December 16th, in order to give away the books you can find (and buy if you want) here.

There are only two things to keep in mind. First, I'm only going to allow each person to win one autographed book between now and the 16th. Also, after you win, you'll need to send me your address via email so I can forward it on to Premiere (They'll be sending the book directly out to you at some point after the 16th).

Here are the rules today: one guess per person, in the comments section, and the first person who gets the answer right wins the prize.

Today's prize? It's an autographed copy of Zell Miller's "A National Party No More".

Now here's the question you need to answer to win: A friend just let me borrow season 1 of a particular TV show to check out. I've actually never seen it before, but heard it's supposed to be funny. Guess which show it is and you're the winner.

*** Update #1 ***: We have a winner. It was "Aqua Teen Hunger Force" and LexLuthor13 got it. LexLuthor13, email me your address...

This Bill Cosby quote isn't new, but I just ran across it today and it was so phenomenal that I just had to post it....

"I am talking about these people who cry when their son is standing there in an orange [prison] suit. Where were you when he was 2? Where were you when he was 12? Where were you when he was 18, and how come you didn't know that he had a pistol? And where is the father? ... You can't keep saying that God will find a way. God is tired of you."

I love it when Bill Cosby gets on a roll and nails irresponsible people who don't take care of their kids. If a conservative said the same things Cosby did, they'd be treated like a racist curmudgeon and blown off. But because Cos is a beloved liberal actor, people don't just write him off when he lays the personal responsibility smackdown on everybody within earshot.

I'm sure I wouldn't agree with a lot of Bill Cosby's views, but on this subject I'm in total agreement...

This is not going to come as a suprise to many of you, but there are liberals out there who hate America so much that they're rooting for us to fail in Iraq. But, what may come as a surprise is that they were willing openly willing to say so over at the Democratic Underground.

Of course, there were some lefties who were genuinely appalled by the sentiment you're about to read, but they were outnumbered lefties at the DU who hope we lose, but weren't willing to openly come out and say so. Those people just posted some variation of, "pull the troops out now" which of course would be a humiliating defeat for America & would likely lead to civil war or an invasion of Iraq by its neighbors.

However, there were a few "honest liberals" who were willing to come out and say the sort of things that people like Ted Rall & Michael Moore don't have guts to say publicly in a DU thread called, "A blunt question: Do you want the U.S. to succeed in Iraq?". Here's what they had to say...

cali: "A blunt question: Do you want the U.S. to succeed in Iraq? I don't. If the U.S. "succeeds" in Iraq it will further empower the neocons to move on to Syria and/or Iran. The threat of a greater mideast war could well be realized. Things can get worse. Much worse. I hope the Iraqis elect representatives who kick the U.S. out of Iraq and tell bushco no way to the huge permanent military bases that we're already constructing. Of course, it almost goes without saying that this war has already been a hideous debacle with a hundred thousand dead Iraqis, over 1200 dead American forces, 10,000 injured and a severely damaged infrastructure. For the sake of the Iraqi people, I hope a wider civil war is averted, but I don't want to see bushco able to claim any degree of success."

livinginphotographs "Depends on the definition of succeed. If by succeed you mean crush the insurrection of occupied Iraqis, killing scores more civilians in the process, and installing a corrupt puppet regime which will evolve into a Saddam lookalike, keeping the oil and the money flowing into Halliburton's and the Bush crime family's pockets, then NO.

If by having a new (and competent, I should add) president who withdraws the troops and apologizes to the Iraqi people for our actions, then yes.

I'd prefer a humiliating withdrawal, personally (with as little loss of life as possible on both sides). The war-mongers in the US really need to be taken down a notch."

Bouncy Ball: "This is a hard question. The war we started there is immoral and unjust, so of course I don't want to see an immoral, unjust war succeed.

But at the same time, I feel horrible for the Iraqi people. We went in there, busted up their country, started all kinds of sh*t, have killed literally thousands of them, destroyed their homes and businesses, thus livelihoods. The infrastructure is for sh*t.

It's the Iraqi people I am mainly concerned about. And despite bush's blather, his actions as CinC says the opposite, that he is NOT concerned with the Iraqis. For that matter, the people currently running the government don't seem too awfully concerned with the US servicemembers they sent there, either.

I want things to be BETTER for the Iraqi people. I want us to stop KILLING THEM. And I want our US servicemembers back home.

But I just don't see how those things are to happen with this group in charge.

Evil AND stupid is a horrible combination and they have it in spades."

Voltaire: "No, I do not. And folks can take that any way they want to."

DireStrike: "No. To 'succeed' now would require insane costs in blood and money, in addition to emboldening the neocons. With our media, even a pyhrric victory would be hailed as a stunning triumph."

arcane1: "No. Hell no. F*ck no. If their plan was what they are telling us it is, then I would say definitely yes...however, it is not. I hope they fail miserably."

RedCheckShirt: "I hope for failure. A US defeat in Iraq will lead to freedom for the oppressed people of Palestine."

arewenotdemo: "Should we have wished the Nazis success in WWII? Because that's the way I feel about the war in Iraq."

itzamirakul: "I do not want the U.S. to succeed in..turning Iraq into a corporate state, which is what the plan really is. Iraq is to be the prototype to see how a country can survive if it is totally run by corporate interests. It is to be put into the hands of major big businesses from here and from other countries that have befriended this administration.

I want us to succeed in bringing our troops home immediately and safely.

Also, I do NOT support any soldiers who are gung-ho about going to Iraq to fight or for any families that stand-teary-eyed and praise Bush and say that their warrior-child died for "our freedom." I have no sympathy for any soldiers except those who do not want to be there."

If all goes as expected, I'll be punching up the third annual "Twenty Most Annoying Liberals In The United States For 2004" this week-end. 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

[Ed. note: found in a dumpster on W. 53rd Street -- first draft of the latest CBSNews.com Special Report on the scourge of blogs]

(CBS) By David Paul Kuhn,
CBSNews.com chief political writer

In 1906, pioneering investigative reporter Upton Sinclair published The Jungle, documenting the squalid and filthy condition of the meatpacking industry in Chicago. Now, nearly a century later, another unregulated industry poses a potential health hazard to millions of unsuspecting American news consumers: Internet blogs.

Also known as "weblos" or "ternetbls," these online publications began to appear on computer screens in early 2004, where they were first seen as an efficient way for ordinary citizens to share delicious dessert recipes and adorable pet photos. Instead, Internet blogs are increasingly being used for a darker purpose: to spread unregulated political opinions. Cleverly exploiting a loophole in the First Amendment, Internet blogs have gained many of the protections of legitimate media, such as newspapers and television. They are increasingly gaining influence.

Many are must-reads for political junkies, who openly cruise the unlit, trash-strewn alleyways of the Web, anxiously looking for a punditry "fix." But is that vial of sweet political crack from Dr. Bloggood "stepped on" with dangerous campaign contaminants? In the nation’s hottest Senate race, this past year, the answer was yes.

Little over a month ago, the first Senate party leader in 52 years was ousted when South Dakota Republican John Thune defeated top Senate Democrat Tom Daschle. While more than $40 million was spent in the race, saturating the airwaves with advertising, it is clear that outcome was determined in the shadowy bowels of the violent South Dakota blog underworld: two leading South Dakota blogs were authored by paid advisers to Thune’s campaign.

Federal Election Commission documents obtained by CBS News show that in October the Thune campaign paid Jon Lauck, of Daschle v Thune, $27,000 and Jason Van Beek, South Dakota Politics, $8,000. Both blogs favored Thune, but neither gave any disclaimer during the election that the authors were on the payroll of the Republican candidate.

The shocking allegations were originally uncovered by KELO-TV and The Sioux Falls Argus Leader, after their advertising sales staffs reported increased buying resistance from the Thune campaign.

Oddly, no laws have apparently been broken. Case precedent on political speech as it pertains to blogs does not exist. But where distinguished, real journalists like Dan Rather can have their entire careers broken because some so-called "ethics violations," bloggers are writing in the Wild West of cyberspace. There remains no code of ethics, or even an employer, to enforce any standard.

"Yeeehawww, looky me, I'm the Lone Cyberspace Ranger, riding across the unregulated cyberprairie with my trusty sidekick Proportional Fonto!" I mean, what the fuck? Godammit, experts didn't go to two years of Columbia Journalism School to put up with this kind of shit from a bunch of faceless non-experts with modems.

At minimum, the role of blogs in the Daschle-Thune race is a telling harbinger for 2006 and 2008. And if blogs start to crowd out peer-reviewed media, consumers will begin losing access to professional-grade journalism phrases, like "telling harbinger." Worse, some blogs could become new vehicles for the old political dirty tricks.

Like all media, blogs hold the potential for abuse. While there are yet no documented cases of people using blogs to smack their dogs on the nose for soiling the rug, or electrocutions from blogs falling into bathtubs, experts believe it may only be a matter of time. Experts also point out that blogs' unregulated status makes them particularly attractive outlets for political attack.

“The question is: What are the appropriate regulations on the Internet?" asked Kathleen Jamieson, an expert on political communication and dean of the Annenberg School for Communications. “It’s evolved into an area that perhaps we need to restart the whole talk radio adjective-rationing debate."

“If you put out flyers to sell your bicycle, you have to identify yourself with the little phone number tear-offs,” Jamieson said. “Maybe we could pass some kind of flyer-type laws like that, for these unlicensed blogging people, to get them off the Internet, and make sure we have enough funding to staff the nation's Kinkos with federal flyer agents."

“People are pretty smart in assuming that if a blog is making a case on one side that it’s partisan,” Jamieson added. “The problem is when a blog pretends to hold neutrality but is actually partisan, and this is where the average American is a gullible idiot. They become mesmerized by the intriguing fake neutrality of the blog, confusing it with the genuine neutrality of legitimate news sources, like network television, and then WHAMMO! that's when they get the old bloggo sucker punch.”

First Amendment attorney Kevin Goldberg called blogs “definitely new territory.”

“Are blogs analogous to a sole person, or are they a media publication?” said Goldberg, a legal counsel to the American Society of Newspaper Editors. "Whatever the courts decide, it is critical that we consider all those sweet billable hours."

Generally, the Supreme Court has ruled that restrictions on political advocacy by corporations and unions does not apply to media or individuals. The reasoning has been that media competition insures legitimacy. And, unlike the rugged competition of the traditional media, the vast hypermonopoly of the blog industry offers little in the way of checks or balances.

Hypothetically, if The Washington Post discovered that The New York Times had a reporter being paid by the Bush campaign it would report it. If proven, the suspect reporter would be fired and sold to a traveling carnival freakshow, where he would be forever displayed as KoKo, Bush Boy of the Times. Hence, the courts have been satisfied with the industry’s ability to keep itself uncontaminated with Bush-types.

Duncan Black, author of the popular liberal blog Atrios, faced an early test of this. Black wrote under a pseudonym. While writing his blog, Black was a senior fellow at a liberal media watchdog group, Media Matters for America. Black eventually claimed credit for his blog. Fellow bloggers heavily publicized his political connections. He was teased and taunted, but has yet to be fired. As of press time, CBS News' repeated phone calls to Black's managers at Blogosphere, Inc. have not been returned.

Defenders of Black point out that unlike the South Dakota blogs, he was not working on behalf of a creepy Republican with a hair helmet. And clearly, absent blog ethical guidelines, what Black did was not that different than many others.

“He is perfectly free to write the blog. You can criticize him for it but he had a perfect Constitutional right to do what he did,” said a hysterical Volokh Conspiracy, who claims to teach "free speech law" at "UCLA" "Law School."

“People are free to say whatever they want to say and not reveal any financial inducements and not reveal in whose pay they are,” Volokh added, shifting nervously in his seat while wiping sweat from his upper lip.

However, some experts believe that Volokh himself may have a conflict of interest. He authors his own blog, the Volokh Conspiracy, which prominently features advertisements for Post-It notes, a product of the 3M Corporation, which has contributed thousands of dollars to Republican campaigns since the 1960 election cycle.

Despite the rear-guard actions of First Amendment extremists like Volokh, many experts -- and the experts' copy editor, and also the experts' girlfriend -- believe the time has come to finally bring regulatory reform to the Blog Trust.

Just as Upton Sinclair's The Jungle spurred government oversight of the food industry in 1906, many experts believe that expert articles like this will spur angry internet consumers to demand government to shine a regulatory light into the dank, filthy recesses of the blog world.

When this will happen is unclear, but one thing is certain: the experts' boss said he thinks the experts might get a Peabody Award out of it.

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

In his latest Weekly Standard column, Hugh Hewitt talks to conservative women down in Florida and concludes that Rudy almost has the nomination in the bag...

"RIVERSIDE COUNTY is as "red" as any county in America, and getting redder. Before I spoke, the group had been entertained by the local home-schooling association's girls' choir, and many of the questions I received concerned illegal immigration and Hillary Clinton's ambitions. In other words--this is to use the title of John Podhoretz's invaluable book on places such as Riverside County, Bush Country.

Giuliani swept more than three-quarters of the votes, with the other three choices receiving smatterings of support. Keep in mind that this isn't an exercise in name identification--these women knew each of the candidates--as well as every possible name in the "other" category. This was an informed choice. I stopped what I was doing, repelled the audience, and then conducted a focus group.

Like many other pundits, I have been wondering whether Giuliani can escape the snows of Iowa and New Hampshire in 2008 given that Pat Robertson won the former in 1988 and Pat Buchanan the latter in 1992. Giuliani is too "moderate" to win the GOP nod, right?

Wrong, if these ladies are to be believed. Among the many praises that gushed forth: decisive, experienced, loyal to "W"--an interesting positive, that--funny and, crucially, tough enough to take on the Clintons. There were many praises for Senator Frist, and some for John McCain, but Giuliani has their hearts--already.

...But if the ladies I spoke with on Monday are any indication of a trend--and there are excellent reasons to conclude that they are--the battle may already be over. For Giuliani to consolidate his position with the center-right would only require some deft appearances during the coming struggles over Supreme Court nominees. If he wades into the fray to help confirm the president's nominees, his personal views on abortion will matter far less than if he is absent from these fights. He would also find it useful to get on the side of allowing the people a vote on the defense of marriage amendment through the process of state ratification or denial of ratification to a proposed amendment."

Make no mistake about it, Rudy Giuliani could very well take the nomination in 2008. But I can tell you definitively that the battle ain't over =D

Rudy is likable & very charismatic, he has a tough guy reputation on crime and terrorism, his stock went way up during this election cycle because of his effective campaigning for George Bush, and yes, he is "America's mayor".

But, Rudy is far from a lock. By 2008, 9/11 will be more than 6 years back and a lot of the fond memories people have of Rudy standing tall after that dark day will have lost their emotional impact. Furthermore, how is Rudy going to keep himself fresh and in the public eye until then? That's an unknown.

Moreover, a lot of Republicans just don't know all that much about Rudy other than the highlights.

For example, how many Republicans know Rudy is not just pro-abortion, but is in favor of partial-birth abortion? He's also pro-gay marriage and has been in a very messy divorce. Giuliani's former wife publicly accused him of "open and notorious adultery". How do you think that's going to play with the same Republicans who reviled Bill Clinton because he cheated on his wife?

Yes, I do agree with Hugh that there are things Rudy can do to reassure social conservatives about those issues, but will he do them and will they believe him? No matter what Giuliani does at this point, the reality is that there are going to be a significant number of social conservatives who just aren't going to give him money, who aren't going to go door to door for him, and who aren't going to be all that motivated to turn out to support him on Nov 2, 2008. That's not something that's impossible to overcome, but it's also a huge minus for a man who wants to be the Republican candidate for President.

Of course, I'm not saying Rudy is unelectable or can't win the nomination, but I suspect a lot of Rudy's luster is going to rub off after people get to know him a little better. Maybe he'll still win despite that. I mean if for example, it comes down to Giuliani or John McCain, an egomaniacal blowhard who's going to be 72 years old in 2008, Rudy may end up being a viable option. But at some point, I suspect Rudy's stock is going to drop precipitously among Republicans when they get a better idea of what he stands for.

*** Correction ***: In the original post, I said incorrectly that there has never been a US President who was divorced. Actually, I had forgotten that Reagan divorced Jane Wyman, which made him the first US President to ever get a divorce. Thanks to RWN reader ChrisB for pointing out my mistake.

As most of you who regularly read RWN know, Britain has an insane, pro-criminal, justice system that favors burglars over homeowners.

Well, Dr Ian Stephen has written an advice column for Brits who're being confronted by burglars and it's every bit as depressing as you'd expect. Here's a little sample...

"When individuals are confronted by intruders there are some actions they should follow. Direct contact should be avoided whenever possible. If unavoidable, the victim should adopt a state of active passivity. In most cases the best form of defence is always avoidance. If this isn’t possible, act passively, be careful what you say or do and give up valuables without a struggle. This allows the victim to take charge of the situation, without the intruder’s awareness, through subtle and non-confrontational means. People can cooperate but initiate nothing. By doing nothing there is no chance of inadvertently initiating violence by saying something such as "Please don’t hurt me".

Yes, what a magnificent criminal justice system the Brits have. If some twitchy-eyed, crack-addled, rapist/burglar breaks into your home, you're not allowed to defend yourself out of fear you might be sent to jail. Instead you should cower in fear, in your home, afraid that you might "inadvertently initiat(e) violence by saying something such as 'Please don’t hurt me'".

Believe it or not, even most of the folks in the comments section at Fark, who usually tend to lean way to the left, find this to be asinine (maybe this is why Democrats try to avoid talking about gun control these days?)

Here's what some of the Farkers had to say about the good doctor's advice and the Brit's nutty pro-criminal laws...

"Don't let the home invaders fall and hurt themselves either. Put up night lights so they don't stub their toes and sue." -- Solzhenisin

"I don't get it, you are supposed to coddle someone who has broken into your home? Wouldn't it be better to shoot them dead, or possibily hit them in the head with a bat over and over again?" -- boom

"I'm a liberal with a shotgun. My taxes can pay for the burglar's funeral." -- altinos

"Why not nip it in the bud and just put all your belongings out on the street so they don't have to 'invade' to begin with?

Remember, it takes a village..." -- RockIsDead

"Whatever you do, if you shoot someone in your house, keep shooting him until he is dead. If you don't, he will say that he was confused, thought he was entering his freinds house, and that he asked you for a glass of water is all. If you kill him, then you can say that he threatend to kill you." -- BiffDangler

"That's retarded. What are you supposed to do, make coffee for them? What the hell is keeping EVERYONE from robbing houses if there's no fear of retribution?" -- annoyed_grunt

"Whitewabbit (from Britain): im happy knowing that an intruder in my house is armed with at worst, a knife

Unless he somehow overcame his fear of doing something illegal and obtained a gun through non-traditional means." -- Ant

"You people are making Rosie O'Donnell mad" -- Triaxis

"...If you consider your life to be worth more than my stuff, I have a recommendation for you. Dont break into my freakin home.

I say let the potential burglar choose which they consider the most valuable. I will agree with them. Just understand that the moment you step into my home, you have made your choice." -- Tjos Weel

"If I lived in Britain and had to deal with armed burglars, I'd follow the hunter's protocol: shoot, shovel, and shut up...." -- MasterThief

"Step 1: Buy a gun, become a burglar.
Step 2: Move to Britain, burgle until injured while burgling and then proceed to burgle the burglee with lawsuits.
Step 3: Profit." -- CokedUpWerewolf

Howard Dean, the former potential presidential nominee, said today that if he's selected as chairman of the Democrat party, he'll lead "the first genuine effort" to make the DNC a national organization, appealing to voters beyond its historical roots in a few urban areas along the continental coastline.

"During my campaign, I discovered that large sections of the southern and midwestern territories actually had been settled by British and European immigrants and had been divided up into states some years ago," said Mr. Dean. "As chairman of the DNC, I would send expeditions into these regions to learn about the folkways of their inhabitants and to attempt to build peaceful alliances with them."

Mr. Dean said many Democrats would be surprised to learn that the natives in the so-called "red states" are primarily Republicans, not Indians.

"Perhaps it's fantasy to suggest that we can bring our intellectual, flexible Democrat ideology to this primitive, dogmatic alien culture," he said. "But it's no more unlikely than my presidential campaign, and if we use the right words -- you know, small ones -- we just might win."

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

The fine folks over at Premiere Speakers Bureau have hooked me up with some autographed books to give away. If you're looking for great speakers like Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Oliver North, Neil Cavuto, Michael Reagan, Zell Miller, David Limbaugh, Dick Morris, Ben Shapiro, Vince Lombardi, Peggy Noonan, Neal Boortz, & G. Gordon Liddy for an event, Premiere can arrange it for a fee

Now on to the autographed books. I'm going to be doing a number of different contests, from now until December 16th, in order to give away the books you can find (and buy if you want) here.

There are only two things to keep in mind. First, I'm only going to allow each person to win one autographed book between now and the 16th. Also, after you win, you'll need to send me your address via email so I can forward it on to Premiere (They'll be sending the book directly out to you at some point after the 16th).

Here are the rules today: two guesses per person, in the comments section, and the first person who gets the answer right wins the prize.

Today's prize? It's an autographed copy of Neil Cavuto's "More Than Money".

Now here's the question you need to answer to win: Guess who my favorite professional wrestler was when I was a kid. Since this one is a little harder and I'm sure there aren't all that many pro-wrestling fans on the page, everyone gets two shots at it (same post please).

*** Update #1 ***: We have a winner. TigerBomb got it. It was Jimmy Valiant. Send me an email with your address...

I originally posted this a while back and just ran back across it tonight...

I love that graphic!

Then, if there are any blue stater liberals out there who figure if you can't beat 'em, join 'em, there are these nifty Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Membership Cards you can fill out...

But tragically, even us members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy don't have all of our ideas adopted. Take this brilliant map I put together and suggested we send radical Islamic madrassas all over the world....

Then last, but not least, what do you think the chances are that this pic will be trotted out again in 2008 when Hillary runs for the presidency?

Too funny!

Yes, just in case you were wondering, it is getting late and I needed to put something up for tomorrow before I went to bed =D

Kevin Drum over at Political Animal posed questions for conservatives and I thought it would be fun to answer them. Here goes...

1) Considering how Iraq has gone so far, do you still think that American military power is a good way to promote tolerance and democracy in the Middle East? Has your position on this changed in any way over the past two years?

Yes to question #1, and no it hasn't to question #2. Helping Iraq become a democracy is essential to helping freedom spread across the region, keeping Iraq from once again becoming a threat to our country, striking a blow against radical Islam and terrorism, and improving our reputation in the region long-term. We did the right thing by invading and we're doing the right thing by helping them to become a free people. Nobody ever promised it would be easy.

2) Shortly after 9/11, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said publicly that they thought the attacks were well-deserved retribution from God in response to moral decay — as personified by gays, feminists, the ACLU, and NOW. Do you worry that Falwell and Robertson are identified by many as the face of the Republican party? Do you think President Bush has sufficiently distanced himself from them and their followers?

No, I don't worry that, "Falwell and Robertson are identified by many as the face of the Republican party" simply because they aren't identified as the "face of the..party". There are 50 people from Bush 43, Bush 41, Cheney, Delay, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Goldberg, Coulter, Krauthammer, who people would think of when they said "Republican," before Falwell or Robertson, which is how it should be.

Furthermore, I don't think Bush needs to "distance himself" from their "followers" although keeping a distance from two guys with "foot in mouth disease" like Robertson and Falwell is always a good idea.

3) Is democracy promotion really one of your core concerns? Just how far are you willing to go to demonstrate your credibility on this subject? Note: President Bush's policy toward either Pakistan or Saudi Arabia would be excellent case studies to bring this question to life.

Reading a liberal imply that conservatives aren't really concerned about Democracy is like listening to an atheist complain that a Christian doesn't pray enough. Where were the liberals when conservatives like Reagan were fighting to bring down the Soviet Union? Now we're in a war on terrorism that has freed 50 million people so far and the left has again been about as useless as an apron on a pig.

As to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, I do support helping Democracy along in both those countries (and happily, Pakistan seems to be slowly but surely moving in that direction), but we can't make Democracy viable through magic. Instead we have to support Democracy when we can, where we can, with what we have. If Mr. Drum has a viable suggestion for how we could speed Democracy along in both of those countries, I would likely support it. It would be nice if most liberals had the same attitude about Iraq.

4) On a related note, which do you think is more important to the Bush administration in the short term: preservation of a stable oil supply from the Middle East or spreading freedom and liberty throughout the region? Would you be interested in seeing the records of Dick Cheney's 2001 energy task force to verify this? Please be extra honest with this question.

A stable oil supply. And what about it? Is the implication supposed to be because we value oil that we can't think Democracy is important at the same time? That's a bizarre sort of thinking isn't it? I can just imagine Kevin Drum screaming at the TV set during the commercials,

"No, you can't like Miller Lite because it tastes great and is less filling. It has to be one or the other! ONE OR THE OTHER I SAY!!!"

5) A substantial part of the Christian right opposes any compromise with Palestinians because they believe that Jewish domination of the region west of the Jordan River is a precondition for the Second Coming. Is this a reasonable belief? Or do you think these people qualify as loons who should be purged from the Republican party?

Actually, to the best of my knowledge, a relatively small number of evangelical Christians believe this, not a "substantial part of the Christian right". Is it a reasonable belief? It's not something I believe in, but hey, each to his own and I certainly don't consider people who think that to be "loons". Should they be purged from the party? No way, I'll let the left continue to be the party for people who are hostile to people who live in "Jesusland".

6) Yes or no: do you think we should invade Iran if it becomes clear — despite our best efforts — that they are continuing to build nuclear weapons? If this requires a military draft, would you be in favor?

I favor bombing them, not invading them, if there's no other way to stop them from building nukes. As to a draft, we might as well ask what the political implications would be of 20 million martian libertarians immigrating to the US since they're both about equally likely to happen. Those are theoretical questions I'll tackle when and much more importantly IF, they happen.

7) If President Bush decides to substantially draw down our troop presence in Iraq after the January 30 elections, will you support that decision? Please answer this question prior to January 30.

I'm not sure exactly what the meaning of the question is because of the wording.

If the question is would I support Bush arbitrarily withdrawing let's say a majority of our troops, regardless of the security situation in Iraq, no matter what the position of the government is, no I would not.

My goal for the next year (and I expect them to meet it, ideally, but not definitely, within the next six months) is to see the Iraqi people take over their own security from Coalition forces and for us to build permanent bases in Iraq. The sooner that happens, the better, but the timetable depends on how quickly we can get the Iraqis ready.

8) Would you agree that people who accept Laurie Mylroie's crackpot theories about Saddam Hussein's involvement in 9/11 might be taking the threat of terrorism a little too seriously? What do you think should be done with them?

I'm unfamiliar with Laurie Mylroie's theories. However, to the best of my knowledge, Saddam Hussein was not involved with 9/11 although he certainly had ties to Al-Qaeda. As to people who think that Saddam was tied in to the attack, I think they're probably wrong given what we know, but no more so than people who believe that Iraq was a "war for oil" for example. So what's to "be done with them"? Say we disagree with them? Sounds good to me...

Outside the Beltway & Citizen Smash also took shots at it and I thought their answers were worth reading as well.

*** Update #1 ***: Frank J. over at IMAO beats Drum like he was a rabid monkey in his responses to these questions...

Here's a sample,

4) On a related note, which do you think is more important to the Bush administration in the short term: preservation of a stable oil supply from the Middle East or spreading freedom and liberty throughout the region? Would you be interested in seeing the records of Dick Cheney's 2001 energy task force to verify this? Please be extra honest with this question.

I'm starting to not like this "spreading freedom" phrase. It makes it seem like freedom is a virus or peanut butter. That also raises the question that, if freedom were peanut butter, would it be smooth or chunky? I say chunky.

But I digress. I say oil is more important to the Bush administration... or at least I hope it is. Ever try running your car on a democratic Middle East?

5) A substantial part of the Christian right opposes any compromise with Palestinians because they believe that Jewish domination of the region west of the Jordan River is a precondition for the Second Coming. Is this a reasonable belief? Or do you think these people qualify as loons who should be purged from the Republican party?

Who is doing what now?

I'm a Christian (well, a Catholic, which is pretty close) and I've talked to lots of Christians, and I've never heard of this before. Which cheaply printed conspiracy newsletters are you getting this from?

And what's this talk of "purging." You're starting to sound like a Nazi, Drum.

Quick! Behind you! A Christian!

I'm just kidding, Drum. Sorry I made you soil your pants. Seriously, though, I'm more scared of the joooos. I have it on good authority they control everything. It's in one of the same newsletters you're reading.

Random Drug-testing for Fans Urged Increasingly fearful of being attacked by athletes climbing into the stands, sports fans in record numbers have taken to using steroids to bulk up for such violent encounters.

Those are the findings of Dr. Logan Dinelle of the University of Minnesota, who has been studying steroid usage by professional sports fans for the past five years and says that the practice is “unquestionably” on the rise.

“The average sports fan goes to a game now recognizing that there is a distinct possibility, if not a probability, that an athlete will attack him at some point,” says Dr. Dinelle. “If that athlete is on steroids, the fan will lose that fight if he is not on steroids, too.”

One fan who participated in Dr. Dinelle’s study on condition on anonymity says that he started taking steroids three years ago because “all the other fans were doing it.”

“Any fan who goes to a professional sporting event not on steroids is, in my opinion, a chump,” the fan says.

Far from condoning steroid usage among sports fans, Dr. Dinelle calls the trend “troubling” and says that Major League Baseball and the National Basketball Association should institute random drug-testing of fans “immediately.”

“Over the past few years, we’ve noticed that in fights between athletes and fans, the fans have often won,” Dr. Dinelle says. “If it turns out that those fans were on steroids, all of those records should be thrown out the window.”

Elsewhere, President Bush said that in order to shrink the deficit he would check the back of the Declaration of Independence for a treasure map.

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

The fine folks over at Premiere Speakers Bureau have hooked me up with some autographed books to give away. If you're looking for great speakers like Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Oliver North, Neil Cavuto, Michael Reagan, Zell Miller, David Limbaugh, Dick Morris, Ben Shapiro, Vince Lombardi, Peggy Noonan, Neal Boortz, & G. Gordon Liddy for an event, Premiere can arrange it for a fee

Now on to the autographed books. I'm going to be doing a number of different contests, from now until December 16th, in order to give away the books you can find (and buy if you want) here.

There are only two things to keep in mind. First, I'm only going to allow each person to win one autographed book between now and the 16th. Also, after you win, you'll need to send me your address via email so I can forward it on to Premiere (They'll be sending the book directly out to you at some point after the 16th).

Here are the rules today: one guess per person, in the comments section, and the first person who gets the answer right wins the prize.

Today's prize? It's an autographed copy of Sean Hannity's "Deliver Us From Evil".

Now here's the question you need to answer to win: Guess which movie I picked up at Blockbuster tonight and have just started to watch?

*** Update #1 ***: We have a winner: repubgrl87 got it. It's "Spiderman 2". Email me your address repubgrl87...

Here's Andrew Sullivan on Michelle Malkin,

"THE MALKIN AWARD: Every now and again, you have to hand it to a polemicist. Here's one single sentence from Michelle Malkin's latest column:

"Perhaps too much drug-addled '60s nostalgia has burnt out the bleeding-hearts pacifists' brain cells."

"One sentence; four cliche-ridden, playground insults. Can you beat it? Contestants can be nominated from either right or left; but the sentence must be entirely devised to insult; it should be completely devoid of originality; it must have at least two hoary, dead-as-a-Norwegian-parrot cliches; and it must assume that readers already agree with the writer. Arbitrary mean-spiritedness wins extra points. Nominations for the Malkin Award are now open."

Oooh, ooooh, I have some entries! How about these...

"(Zell Miller's) speech tonight was in this vein, a classic Dixiecrat speech, jammed with bald lies, straw men, and hateful rhetoric." -- Andrew Sullivan

This one doesn't have quite as much ooomph, but I still like it...

"The fact that the good doctor (Bill Frist) cannot apparently see a deep distinction between a religious marriage and a civil one shows, I guess, how close to theocracy today's Republicans have become." -- Andrew Sullivan

And I know this one doesn't quite qualify, but I think it's classic Sullivan and worth including...

"The Dixiecrats meet again in New York. Now they're called Republicans." -- Andrew Sullivan

Oh, and here's another one worth adding just for the sheer gall of it...

"...I may not find myself the only conservative moving slowly and reluctantly toward the notion that Kerry may be the right man - and the conservative choice - for a difficult and perilous time." -- Andrew Sullivan

If I had enough time, I could probably put together a whole page of these. Maybe I will. At least it would give people something to link to when people on the left try to claim he's some sort of representative of conservatives...

The Warblogger Awards got another mainstream media mention, this time from MSNBC's Clicked.

You know it's nice to get these MSM mentions, especially the last two since they actually linked, but it's bizarre to me how little traffic they drive my way.

Take the Howard Kurtz WAPO link I received yesterday. The WAPO does, of course, draw enormous numbers of readers and I have to think Kurtz's column is well read....yet, I've gotten 258 sets of eyeballs off the link.

Just as a point of comparison, an Andrew Sullivan link sent me about 1400 people, a Little Green Footballs link sent me about 900, and an Instapundit link sent me around 2900 (after subtracting out roughly the average number of hits my permalkink drives me each day. This MSNBC link I mentioned? I'd say it's unlikely to send me 200 unique users to RWN today.

These websites do major traffic, but wouldn't it be interesting to know how well read particular columnists are? That would tell us a lot. For example, could it be possible that more people actually read Glenn Reynolds over at Instapundit each day than read Howard Kurtz? Does Charles Johnson over at Little Green Footballs actually have more people laying eyeballs on what he writes each day than say any one column at MSNBC? I'd love to know....

Jonah Goldberg is one of the more quotable conservatives out there and this is the 2nd batch of Goldberg quotes that I've compiled.

This collection of quotations runs from his latest column, back to mid-July. That's a year's worth of work for most columnists, but Goldberg is one of the most prolific writers in the business. Furthermore, that also means I have the option of doing another "best of Jonah's quotes" post piece if this one draws any traffic. We shall see how it does.

In any case, enjoy the quotes...

(continued...)

"I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve." -- Yamamoto after Pearl Harbor

"When this war is over, the Japanese language will be spoken only in hell." -- Admiral Bill Halsey on December 7, 1941

"Yesterday, Dec. 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan." -- FDR, Dec 8, 1941

"What kind of a people do they (Japan) think we are? Is it possible they do not realise that we shall never cease to persevere against them until they have been taught a lesson which they and the world will never forget?" -- Winston Churchill

"The attack on Pearl Harbor was plotted in secret, waged without mercy, taking the lives of 2,403 Americans. The shock and chaos came on a quiet Sunday morning. There were acts of great heroism amongst those who survived and those who did not.

Nine who fell that day had Navy ships named after them.

In two hour's time, for bravery above and beyond the call of duty, 15 men earned the Medal of Honor and 10 of them did not live to wear it.

Young sailors refused to abandon ship even as waters washed over the decks. They chose instead to stay and try to save their friends.

A mess steward carried his commander to safety and then manned a machine gun for the first time in his life.

Two pilots ran through heavy fire to get into their P-40 fighters. They proceeded to chase and shoot down four enemy aircraft.

Those were among the scenes of December the 7th.

On December the 8th, as the details became known, the nation's grief turned to resolution. During four years of war, no one doubted the rightness of our cause, no one wavered in the quest of victory.

As a result of the efforts and sacrifice of the veterans who are with us today and millions like them, the world was saved from tyranny." -- George Bush

7/12/1941 & 9/11/2001. Let us do whatever it takes to make sure we never have to burn another date like that into our memories...

Hey look, I made Howie Kurtz's WAPO column because of the Warblogger Awards.

"InstaPundit has won an award for the best blog--but he was also No. 4 for most overrated blog. Andrew Sullivan managed to win most overrated blog, most annoying right-of-center blogger and finish No. 4 for most annoying left-of-center blogger (how does he do that?). Mickey Kaus was the favorite left-of-center blogger, and Daily Kos the most annoying left-of-center blogger.

The name of the site making these judgments, based on voting by 47 invited bloggers? Right Wing News. No euphemisms there."

People always ask how someone like Instapundit can be highly rated in the best blog overall category and still rank in the overrated category. Well, ya gotta be rated to be overrated and as a general rule, the more successful you become, the more people who will dislike you because of it. See Microsoft, AOL, and Britney Spears for more on that.

Speaking of the AOL of the blogosphere, Andrew Sullivan, hey, people really, really, don't like him. I guess that's what happens when you run a "conservative" blog and then get flighty and irrational, do a 180 on all kinds of positions because George Bush doesn't share your views on gay marriage, and then basically paint everyone who disagrees with you on gay marriage as a backwards, bigoted, homophobic, neanderthal.

It couldn't happen to a nicer guy...

A top-secret classified cable from the CIA station chief in Baghdad earlier this month warned of the dangers of stateside officials leaking classified information to the media in an effort to hamper the Bush administration's foreign policy, according to excerpts of the cable obtained exclusively by The New York Times.

The confidential document was initially sent through a secure channel to CIA headquarters, then disseminated widely among officials at the departments of defense and state and eventually made its way to numerous Congressional leaders who leaked it to the The New York Times, which put it on the front page.

"Information is a powerful weapon of war," wrote the unnamed undercover CIA agent, "And war is, by definition, messy. Frank evaluations of current conditions from operatives in the field are crucial to commanders who must shape strategy and tactics. Yet no matter how things are going in theater, the enemy must be made to believe that he is losing and the local citizens must believe that freedom will triumph over oppression. That's why it's essential that secrecy be maintained with respect to confidential communications like this."

"The alternative," he wrote, "is that we become our own worst enemies and scuttle our efforts to liberate the Iraqi people from decades of tyranny. And then American journalists can smugly celebrate the freedom of the press that Iraqi journalists will never know."

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

You know, a few years back I had a step-brother die while he was waiting for an organ donation, and it was amazing to me, that in these days and times, we still have people dying every year waiting for organ transplants. In July of this year, we had 86,077 people, many of poor health, waiting to get organs. Since 1999, 6,000 people a year have died because they've been unable to get organs.

So what's the solution? The Brits, who have the same problem we do except on a smaller scale, have an idea...

"The British Medical Association is calling for an urgent overhaul in the law that surrounds donation, urging the government to accept their argument that "presumed consent" is the only way to reverse the current shortage.

This would mean that the onus is on an individual to sign a form saying they refuse permission for their organs to be used for transplants when they are dead.

If the form is not signed, the organs can then be used by surgeons in transplant operations.

The Scottish Executive dropped a proposal to introduce a scheme of presumed consent in Scotland, which had been proposed by the Ochil MSP Dr Richard Simpson.

The British Medical Association wants a "soft" system of presumed consent in which relatives’ views are also taken into account.

Instead of being asked to consent to donation, they would be informed that their relative had not opted out of donation and, unless they objected, the donation would proceed.

But in June, an attempt to make organ donation automatic unless people opted out, thus increasing the number of organs available, was defeated at Westminster when Labour ordered its back-benchers to vote it down."

In good conscience, I can't support "presumed consent". Even after you die, you, not the government should decide what happens to your body unless there are unusual circumstances.

However, that doesn't mean there's nothing that can be done. In fact, given that we're a nation of roughly 300 million people and there are less than 100,000 people waiting, it should be EASY to make up the shortage. How about a small tax break for signing up for organ donations? For a donor's organ to be given away after death, his family has to approve. Sometimes they don't agree to the person's wishes or it takes too long to find a family member (there's a limited window in which to act with organ donations). How about dropping that requirement? The person, not their family, should ultimately decide what happens to their domains.

Another possibility is setting up a fund to pay the families of organ donors. Even at $5,000 a pop you could cover 86,000 donors for less than half a billion and that might not be necessary given that a single person can give away multiple organs. Furthermore, once we chewed through the backlog, the number of donors needed would drop significantly. A big advertising campaign might even be enough to convince a large enough group of people to sign-up to alleviate the shortage. We have Mother's Against Drunk Driving, right? Why not, Mothers for Organ Donation?

Personally, I'm signed up to be a donor and I think it's a shame that so many people in this country die needlessly after sometimes suffering for years, all because they don't have an organ none of us are going to need after we're dead. This is a solvable problem that can be addressed in a lot of different ways and I for one wish more people would publicly step up to the plate and talk about it. That may be all it takes to start solving the problem. After all, it's not like you're going to need your organs after you pass on...

The fine folks over at Premiere Speakers Bureau have hooked me up with some autographed books to give away. If you're looking for great speakers like Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Oliver North, Neil Cavuto, Michael Reagan, Zell Miller, David Limbaugh, Dick Morris, Ben Shapiro, Vince Lombardi, Peggy Noonan, Neal Boortz, & G. Gordon Liddy for an event, Premiere can arrange it for a fee

Now on to the autographed books. I'm going to be doing a number of different contests, from now until December 16th, in order to give away the books you can find (and buy if you want) here.

There are only two things to keep in mind. First, I'm only going to allow each person to win one autographed book between now and the 16th. Also, after you win, you'll need to send me your address via email so I can forward it on to Premiere (They'll be sending the book directly out to you at some point after the 16th).

So are we ready for the first contest?

Here are the rules today: one guess per person, in the comments section, and the first person who gets the answer right wins the prize.

Today's prize? It's an autographed copy of Ann Coulter's "How To Talk To A Liberal".

Now here's the trivia question you need to answer to win: My dog Patton is named after general George S. Patton and I've already decided that if I get any more dogs, they'll also be named after American generals. Guess the 5 American generals who would be the namesakes for my dogs....

*** Update #1 ***: We have a winner...

Douglas McArthur
William Tecumseh Sherman
Winfield Scott
Tommy Franks
Andrew Jackson

hochbaum3

Send me an email with your address hochbaum3...

In case you were wondering, my dog Patton is doing fine...

He's chasing balls, squirrels, birds, barking at strangers, eating treats, napping, and doing all the normal things that dogs love to do.

Ah, he's definitely the best dog ever...

Usually, I only link multiple posts from threads at the Democratic Underground, but I enjoyed this one so much I thought it deserved its own link...

Brundle_Fly: "KERRY WON! I have no doubt of it now, the fraud is apparent on so many levels.

I am sure Kerry got the popular vote, there is no way * could get 3.5 million votes more than Kerry. and * is just sitting there laughing as the Dem's look inward to try to figure out what went wrong. WAKE UP PEOPLE.

What went wrong is the election was stolen, I am very very pissed. The United States of America is dead to me now, all of the things we stood for are gone, and using them as a launching pad to some patriotic drivel to keep the population is line is unacceptable.

I say its time to fight!

F*CK THE BOZO'S!"

Bush couldn't have won because I like Kerry better and I hate America and patriotism now, viva la Revolution and WAAAAAAAAH, WAAAAAAAH, WAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!

This one deserves an honorable mention in The 2nd Annual 10 Worst Quotes From The Democratic Underground For 2004...

The fine folks over at Premiere Speakers Bureau have hooked me up with some autographed books to give away. If you're looking for great speakers like Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Oliver North, Neil Cavuto, Michael Reagan, Zell Miller, David Limbaugh, Dick Morris, Ben Shapiro, Vince Lombardi, Peggy Noonan, Neal Boortz, & G. Gordon Liddy for an event, Premiere can arrange it for a fee

Now on to the autographed books. I'm going to be doing a number of different contests, from now until December 16th, in order to give away the books you can find here.

There are only two things to keep in mind. I'm only going to allow each person to win one autographed book between now and the 16th. Also, after you win, you'll need to send me your address via email so I can forward it on to Premiere (They'll be sending the book directly out to you).

So are we ready for the first contest?

Here are the rules today: one guess per person, in the comments section, and the first person who gets the answer right wins the prize.

Today's prize? It's an autographed copy of Oliver North's "War Stories".

Now here's the trivia question you need to answer to win: Name my favorite fictional character of all time...

*** Update #1 ***: Well, that didn't take long. Our first winner is P_Stick who correctly guessed that my favorite fictional character of all time is Conan.

*** Update #2 ***: Hey everybody, it's your lucky day! P_Stick has decided to decline the prize and let someone else have a shot at it. That means you can get another shot at it with a new question. Rules stay the same: one guess per person, in the comments section, and the first person who gets the answer right wins the prize.

For an autographed copy of Oliver North's "War Stories", guess my favorite band in high school.

*** Update #3 ***: We have a winner! Blackbird4739 called it, it was Twisted Sister...

Bush looked over the back of the Declaration of Independence carefully. "So where is that treasure map?"

Laura Bush snatched it from his hands. "What did I tell you about playing with historical documents? I'm taking this back to the National Archives."

"Aww," Bush moaned as Laura walked away. He then picked up his phone. "Frist, where's that intelligence bill?"

"We're still working on it."

"What! What's the use of a majority if they don't do what I tell them? You shape up, or I'll find some other Congress to do my bidding!" Bush hung up. "Now I'm bored."

Bush spotted Scott McClellan walking by. "Hey, Scott; what's happening in the world?"

"Well... uh... there is the oil for food scandal at the U.N."

"Great idea!" Bush exclaimed as he sat up. "Let's clean up the U.N." Bush opened up a closet revealing a large number of baseball bats. He picked one up. "Here, you pick one, Scott."

"Uh... okay," Scott said dubiously as he took a bat.

Bush poked Scott in the stomach with his bat. "That's a bat for playing baseball with, dumbass! Get a beating bat." Bush then handed Scott a new bat.

"So what are we going to do with these bats?" Scott asked.

"You're so dumb," Bush answered as he headed out of the office, "Now let's find Rumsfeld."

Rumsfeld was nearby using a phone and shouting, "I want the insurgents dead! DEAD! You should be killing them now! ...You're not killing them; you're talking to me!"

"Hey, Rummy, can we borrow your dog?" Bush asked.

"Yes! Just stop bothering me!"

"Deal! Chomps, grab your U.N. helmet."

Chomps grabbed his blue peacekeeper helmet, flipped it in the air, and caught it on his head. He then growled at whatever he suspected he'd be angry at soon.

Bush, Scott, and Chomps headed for the door, but were soon spotted by Laura. "Quick, Scott, use your spin powers so she doesn't get suspicious."

"What are you two doing with baseball bats and Rumsfeld's angry dog?" Laura questioned.

"Uh... we're going to play baseball at the park," Scott answered.

"But those look like beating bats to me... as evidenced by the blood stains on them," Laura said suspiciously.

"No, we... uh... painted them with splashes of red... which all the cool kids are doing now."

"Then why does Chomps have his U.N. peacekeeper helmet?"

"He's using that as a baseball helmet."

"And why don't you two have helmets?"

"We're… uh… much less safety conscious than Chomps.."

Laura tried to stare down Scott. "Okay, but I'm going to keep my eye on you two!" She then walked off.

"Good job, Scott," Bush said, "Now let's go smash!"

* * * *

"Smash! Smash! Smash!" Bush yelled as he swung his bat around and smashed stuff in the U.N. "You smash stuff too!" he told Scott.

"Okay," Scott said as he dubiously hit stuff with his bat. "Hey! This is fun!"

"You look suspicious to me!" Bush yelled at one U.N. delegate. He then raised his bat. "You get out of the U.N.!" The man ran away in fear. "This place is filled with lackeys of dictators."

"What are you doing?" Kofi Annan demanded.

"We're cleaning up the U.N., Coffee," Bush told him. He then picked up a paperweight off a desk and threw it at a window, shattering it. "And we do windows!"

"We'll see about that!" Kofi answered, "Kojo!"

A large man entered the room. "I am Kojo!" he yelled, "The U.N. exists for Kojo to make money. You smash U.N., then you fight Kojo. I am Kojo."

"I'll smash you good!" Bush yelled as he ran at Kojo and swung his bat. The bat smashed to pieces against Kojo.

Kojo laughed. "You cannot smash Kojo! I am Kojo!"

"Well, then," Bush said, backing up, "I think it's time for Kojo to meet Cujo."

Chomps then leapt at Kojo with a vicious growl.

"No! Kojo no like being bit by angry dog! I am Kojo!"

"Now that's some good peacekeeping, Chomps," Bush chuckled.

"You cannot come in here and maul my son with your dog!" Kofi shouted.

"I can do whatever I want; I'm a newly reelected American president," Bush answered, "Isn't that right, Scott."

"Well, you were reelected, but I'm not sure that gives you legal authority to..."

"Shut up, Scott," Bush interrupted, "Anyway, Coffee, you better stop the U.N. from being so inept and corrupt!"

"Never!" Kofi shouted defiantly.

"Scott, smash him with your bat," Bush ordered.

"Uh... I don't know about smashing people. You see..." Suddenly something hit Scott's bat. It was a shuriken stuck inside it.

"Oh no!" Bush shouted, "It's the Chinese delegation to U.N. - evil Chinese Commie ninjas! Cheese it!"

Bush and Scott then ran away with ninjas in hot pursuit.

* * * *

"So, did Bush and you go to the U.N. to smash things with baseball bats, even mauling Kofi Annan's son with an angry dog, until you were chased away by Chinese ninjas?" a reporter asked.

"Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?" Scott scoffed.

"Does America face a kung fu gap with the Chinese?" Melinda Hawkish of FOX News asked.

"That's insane," Scott answered, "Our kung fu is superior to theirs."

"Then do a flying dragon punch," Melinda challenged.

"Uh... later. My back is acting up."

Melinda then leapt up behind the podium and got Scott in a headlock while twisting his wrist. "It's obvious the Bush administration's kung fu is weak," Melinda said to her camera, "This is a FOX News exclusive."

"Ow! Doesn't this go against journalistic standards?" Scott whined.

The crowd of reporters laughed at the sound of the phrase "journalistic standards."

"I hate you guys."

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

The Democrats never miss a chance to keep a brother down...well, if he's conservative that is...

"Incoming Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid on Sunday had harsh words for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

When asked to comment on Thomas as a possible replacement for Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Reid told NBC's "Meet the Press": "I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court.

"I think that his opinions are poorly written. I just don't think that he's done a good job as a Supreme Court justice."

Rehnquist announced he had thyroid cancer earlier this year, and there has been speculation about a possible replacement should he retire.

Kathy Arberg, a spokeswoman for the Supreme Court, said Thomas' policy is not to comment on such matters."

Let's just really say what this is all about: Harry Reid's real problem with Clarence Thomas isn't the opinions he's written, it has to do with his skin color. If you're black or Latino and a conservative, the Democrats are going to target you because of your race and your ideology.

They're going to call you an "extremist," they're going to claim you're unqualified, and if you're prominent enough, they're going to draw cartoons of you with big lips, call you Aunt Jemima, call you a house slave, & say you're a sell-out because you don't take orders from people like Ted Kennedy, Terry MacAuliffe, & Robert Byrd. It's not that they're prejudiced against minorities, they're just prejudiced against black people who don't do what they're told by white Democrats.

Ask Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Janice Rogers Brown, Miguel Estrada, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Armstrong Williams, Michelle Malkin and any other minorities who don't tow the liberal line about how they get treated by those same Democrats who are lecturing everyone else on tolerance some time. I'm sure they can give you a real earful.

If you're a liberal Democrat, whatever your race, fine, you're in the right party. But, if you're a conservative minority and you're voting Democrat because you're intimidated by these creeps in the Democratic Party who'll call you names if you don't act like your skin color determines which way you've got to vote, come on over to the GOP.

Don't let the Dems rhetoric scare you. You are welcome in the GOP. Don't believe me? Don't think I'm serious? Well, let me say right up front to anyone in the GOP who doesn't welcome minorities into the Party: Screw you, we don't need people like you in the GOP.

If you're a minority, not a liberal, and haven't ever given the GOP a serious look, why not do it now? No party is perfect, but unlike the Democrats, at least we look at you as a person, not a skin color who has to vote whichever way we tell you.

*** Update #1 ***: From the comments section, jweir says,

"The thing that struck me on reading this blog entry was that it's extremely racist to believe that a person cannot be criticized just because they're non-white.

Its akin to saying "Don't criticize them... can't you see that they're black??"."

It is of course, fine to criticize people who aren't white. For example, Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton are race hustling poverty pimps who should be an embarassment to the Democratic Party.

But after ripping into Thomas, Reid went on to laud Justice Scalia and if you understand politics on the Hill, you know why he did that.

Given the poor health of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, it's likely that George Bush will have to appoint his successor and the rumor is that he's leaning toward Thomas. Now the Democrats loathe Scalia, but having Clarence Thomas as Chief Justice would be much worse because he's black and Democrats absolutely HATE IT when black Republicans succeed.

Know why? Because they spend all their time telling people that Republicans are cross burnin', racist, rednecks that detest black people. Of course, that doesn't square with reality because if that's what Republicans are like, why is it that Clarence Thomas was appointed by a Republican? How did Colin Powell become Secretary of State? Why did Bush appoint Condi to be the next Secretary of State? Why is it that Rush Limbaugh would have Walter Williams fill in for him if his audience is filled with drooling racists? Heck, if conservatives are such racists, how can you account for the popularity of Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, Deroy Murdock, Jesse Lee Peterson, Michelle Malkin, Alan Keyes, Ward Connerly and conservative pundits, activists, and talk radio hosts?

That's why Democrats go after successful conservative minorities so viciously, because they can't afford for minorities to figure out that conservatives aren't the evil boogeymen the left portrays them to be. And if more moderate and conservative minorities don't buy the hype about Republicans, then they might give the GOP a real look instead of wasting their votes on liberals they don't agree with, but think at least ,"don't hate me like those Republicans do".

There are a lot of things we can do to help reduce the cost of healthcare: tort reform, health care savings accounts, fighting price controls on American drugs in other countries, and streamlining the massive amount of rules and regs we have for bringing drugs to market.

But one thing we absolutely shouldn't do is socialize our health care because as P.J. O'Rourke said,

"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free."

The good people of Tennessee had an opportunity to take up close a personal look at socialized medicine -- a statewide version of Hillarycare -- and the results were every bit as disastrous as you'd predict...

"...In 1994, Tennessee passed what was then a very hot New Democrat idea--call it government managed care--a version of the reform the former first lady was also pitching nationwide. TennCare promised the impossible dream of politicians everywhere: Lower health-care costs while covering more of the "uninsured." They got the impossible, all right. After 10 years of mismanagement and lawsuits, TennCare now eats up one-third of the state's entire budget and is growing fast. Governor Phil Bredesen, a Democrat, is preparing to pull the plug and return the state to the less lunatic subsidies of Medicaid.

The TennCare concept was for the state to operate like an HMO, providing health insurance to those who needed it and paying the premiums for those who couldn't afford it. The idea was even sold as a cost savings because it would provide "managed care" (volume discounts, preventative care, etc.). TennCare opened enrollment to hundreds of thousands of people who did not qualify for Medicaid, even to some six-figure earners. Costs quickly exploded, and despite attempts to tighten eligibility rules the program still covers 1.3 million of the state's 5.8 million people.

...Left-wing legal activists have sued the state with impunity to underwrite the cost of nearly unlimited care. A Nashville non-profit called the Tennessee Justice Center has hamstrung reforms for years by suing to enforce a series of consent decrees, some of which predate TennCare.

Prescription drug costs alone increased 23% last year, as there are effectively no limits on the number or types of drugs the system will pay for. If a doctor prescribes aspirin, TennCare pays for it. Ditto for antacids for heartburn and other over-the-counter products. If TennCare denies a claim for a drug or any other type of care, an appeal can be filed for next to nothing. Fighting each appeal costs the state as much as $1,600 in legal fees. With 10,000 appeals filed every month, it's often easier and cheaper to pay a claim, regardless of the merits.

TennCare is now in worse shape than it was a decade ago. Three of the 11 privately run Managed Care Organizations that insured TennCare patients and administered the program have fallen into receivership. Amid the legal wrangling, Blue Cross Blue Shield all but pulled out of the program. Today the state has assumed all the insurance risk and pays most of the premiums."

So we have a program that only covers "1.3 million of the state's 5.8 million people" & it eats up 1/3 of the state's budget? Yep, that "free" health care is a real deal, isn't it?

In order to recognize the excellent work some of our fellow bloggers have been doing, RWN has put together the "3rd Annual Warblogger Awards". More than 200 bloggers were invited to vote for their favorite blog in 16 different categories...

The Funniest Blog
Best Non-American Blog
Best Group Blog
Best Looking Blog
Most Missed (The best blog that's out of business now)
Best Up and Coming Blogger (Which small to medium sized blog do you see
becoming really big in the next year?)
Favorite Columnist Who's Not A Blogger
Least Liked Columnist Who's Not A Blogger
Favorite Political Website That's Not A Blog
Favorite Left-Of-Center Blogger
Most Annoying Left-Of-Center Blogger
Most Annoying Right-Of-Center Blogger
Most Overrated Blog
Best Linker (Which blog has the most interesting links to other pages?)
The Best Original Content For A Blog

You can see all the results by clicking here.