Deroy Murdock drops a little Republican history sandwich right upside the head of the Democrats like an anvil....Ok, there a lot of mixed metaphors there, but you get the general idea.

So what's Murdock's latest column about? The Democrats, the same Party that still to this day refers to Robert Byrd, a former member of the KKK, as the "Conscience of the Senate," have done a brilliant job of falsely convincing black Americans that they aren't welcome in the GOP. Deroy Murdock counters the Dem's propaganda with the facts and it's well worth reading...

"Each February, Black History Month recalls Democrat Harry Truman's 1948 desegregation of the armed forces and Democrat Lyndon Baines Johnson's signature on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the greatest black legislative victory since Republican Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery in 1863. This annual commemoration, however, largely overlooks the many milestones Republicans and blacks have achieved together by overcoming reactionary Democrats.

-- President G.W. Bush named Condoleezza Rice America's first black female NSC chief, then our second (consecutive) black secretary of State. Just last month, one-time Klansman Robert Byrd and other Senate Democrats stalled Rice's confirmation for a week. Amid unanimous GOP support, 12 Democrats and Vermont Independent James Jeffords opposed Rice — the most "No" votes for a State designee since 14 senators frowned on Henry Clay in 1825."

Hat tip to DANEgerus weblog for finding this one and Freaking News for the graphic.

The WAPO's Metro columnist, Donna Britt, quoted RWN in a piece attacking Drudge for some splashy Chris Rock related news that he posted last week....

"Not content with trying to provoke gays, Drudge also attempted to incite abortion foes to lobby against Rock with the headline "Shock Oscar host Chris Rock recently declared that abortion in the United States is a "beautiful thing!" He then cited a joke Rock has used since the early '90s:

But many abortion foes didn't seem to be biting, either. One antiabortion blogger said it's "a mistake to treat a comedian doing standup like he's a senator doing a stump speech." Dorinda Bordlee, an attorney for Americans United for Life, told LifeNews.com that she'd seen the routine and understood it was a parody. Rock, she explained, used satire "to show that abortion on demand has made women more into sex objects than we've ever been."

Donna, Donna, Donna...where is the love? Why does Dorinda Bordlee get her name mentioned along with a web address while I'm the "antiabortion blogger?" If you're not gonna mention my name or blog, you could have at least linked to the post, which I'd like to note, wasn't a slap at Drudge. Heck, since Drudge actually linked to the article, I might have gotten some nice traffic out of it.

Ah well, that's the way the cookie crumbles...

Hat tip to RWN reader Phillip Ruane for letting know about the mention.

I'm a fan of Kathleen Parker's work, but I think she's worried about a horse getting out the barn that has already lived a long happy life, perished, been sent to the glue factory, and then gone up to that big horsie heaven in the sky.

Here's what Parker has to say about the blogosphere ruining the concept of "off the record comments" & squashing free speech...

"...Given the "instanaeity" of the bloggers' electronic encampment, known as the "blogosphere" - enabling real-time posting of news and commentary - newspapers and even broadcast media have become the news cycle's Sunday drivers.

Jeff Jarvis, who blogs at buzzmachine.com, told media critic Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post that "off the record" is dead. Jarvis, who also said he was after the truth, not Jordan's head, may be right. But as we expand the boundaries of speech - inviting all comers to the virtual newsroom and reporting every utterance without contextual distinction - we may find that we no longer feel free to speak freely."

Two Points.

First of all, I don't care what anybody tells you, what line they feed to you, or how they try to spin it: if you say something wildly controversial in front of a room full of reporters, you're being foolish. This is not new.

During the last presidential campaign, this story featuring off the record comments was broken by non-blogger Matt Drudge?

Democrat John Kerry joked about President Bush's weekend bicycle accident by comparing the president to a child, Internet newshound Matt Drudge reported yesterday.

Mr. Drudge said the debate among reporters over the on-camera "training wheels" remark has been "whether to treat it as on or off the record."

What's that you say? Drudge is one of those "internet reporters" and "You know how Matt Drudge is." In that case, remember these "off-the-record" golden oldies?

"Some take it to mean “between us” or “use with discretion.” Jesse Jackson thought he was “off-the-record” when he referred to New York City as “Hymietown.” Ronald Reagan thought he was “off-the-record” when he referred to White House reporters as “sons of b*tches.” Newt Gingrich’s mother thought she was “off-the-record” when she disparaged Hillary Clinton on network television."

So maybe "off-the-record" officially died after "Easongate," but it has been on life support for decades at least and the truth is the plug should have been pulled long ago.

Secondly, there is truly no such thing as "freewheeling, unfettered expression of thoughts and ideas without fear of censure," even among friends and family. If you think there is, sit down with your wife and start reeling off a list of women you're more sexually attracted to than her along with why you think they're better looking than she is and I suspect that you will learn what "censure" is all about.

Lol...Ok, ok, that's a bit of an extreme example, but I was trying to make a point. There have always been limits to what you can get away with saying without facing the consequences and you cannot ever let yourself lose sight of that. Furthermore, if you are inclined to kick some really controversial ideas around, the very last place you want to do it is in front of a crowd. Today, people are worrying about saying something in front of bloggers who'll be happy to hoist you on your own petard to get an Instalanche, but I'm not sure they're any more likely to humiliate you than the reporters who make a living out of digging up dirt.

So there's no need to worry about the increased scrutiny that the blogosphere brings to bear. That's not something that puts free speech in jeopardy. To the contrary, it's a side-effect of having more free speech and it's a good thing...

There are these things called blogs out there run by salivating morons who work in lynch mobs to bring people down regardless of the facts. This seems like a dangerous new phenomenon, so I had my crack research staff find out all they could about blogs.

FUN FACTS ABOUT BLOGS

* The blog was invented by Edgar K. Blog in the 80's in attempt to spread lies for the sole purposes of evil. At the time, only two other people were reading the internet, but most experts say he was responsible for Black Friday.

* Blogs can simply turn on you at anytime for any reason. They attack without thought or provocation. Thus, make sure to always stay away from them and to disparage them in the media.

* A blog will use a dark art called the "hyperlink" to "link" to what you say in an attempt to slander you. If you see any blog using a hyperlink against you, immediately contact law enforcement to get them to stop.

* If you see a geeky looking male or a slutty looking female in front of a laptop, he or she could be a blogger. Don't make eye contact or say anything in front of them or they will destroy you.

* Bloggers are particularly depraved individuals. One infamous blogger was caught putting puppies in blenders to make smoothies. He now has to do community service as punishment which he fulfills by murdering hobos.

* Be careful of letting your daughters read blogs. Some are known to use ploys called "T-Shirt Babe Contests" to lead unsuspecting women into their lairs.

* The only reason people blog is for the money which the so called “blogosphere” is full of. It is estimated that, by 2010, 90% of people will blog instead of work causing the destruction of the worldwide economy.

* Blogs can often appear as other types of website that have real information instead of lies. If you suspect you're reading a blog, immediately smash your monitor with hammer.

* If it's an LCD, cutting the screen should work too.

* I haven’t really tried that; it just feels like material you should be able to cut.

* In a fight between blogs and Aquaman, blogs would keep hounding Aquaman about supposed statements he made at Davos about U.S. troops deliberately targeting fish until he was forced to resign from his job at CNN.

* If you are part of the mainstream media, blogs will keep demanding facts and objectivity from you. Don't give in! If you cede to this demand, who knows what they'll ask for next!

* If under attack by bloggers, stop, drop, and roll. Just make sure there isn't a blogger with a digital camera nearby or he'll probably make a big deal out of it.

* If blogs continue in their present march of destruction, the regular media will fall and you'll get all your information from what some guy named "Phil" can hack out during his coffee break. Even the greatest minds in science fiction could not imagine such a dystopic future.

This satire was used with the permission of Frank J. from IMAO. You can read more of his work by clicking here.

Since we're now apparently trying to trick our enemies into thinking we've gone as soft as Canada by naming a submarine after incompetent, peanut farmin', pacifist Jimmy Carter -- why not take it to next level and really convince our enemies that we're totally harmless? Why not build this...

Hat tip goes to aengus66 of Drugstore Zen for creating this image in a yet to be published Totalfark thread at Fark.com.

This is a phenomenal story not just because it shows the warped, demoralizing view of what's going on in America that the liberal MSM presents to our troops risking their lives in Iraq, but because it's great to see the appreciation that so many Americans have for the sacrifices our soliders are making for this country.

From Mississippi radio host Matt Friedeman...

"On the program...we were discussing the report that some Europeans were disgusted with the Super Bowl commercial of American soldiers getting applause in an airport. The critics thought it too extreme in its patriotism and a possible incitement to further war.

"And -- I'm breaking up now [editor's note: with tears] -- every one of us just started crying like babies. Everybody in the terminal -- I kid you not, at least two to three hundred people -- just started clapping, spontaneously. To me, it was so much worth what we were doing, to realize that people over here actually get what we were doing. We weren't over there because it's fun. We're over there doing a job."

Hat tip to Betsy's Page for finding this story.

I expand on this reponse to Jamal Badawi's offer of a million dollars to anyone who can find that the Qur'an condones religious warfare, and explore the implications of the offer, in FrontPage today.

(By the way, I heard from Dr. Badawi last night, but alas, he didn't ask me where he should send the million-dollar check. He just asked for more Qur'an verses, since I had said there were "many others," and I supplied some more (there are still more). So I expect he may be drafting a reply.)

A prominent Islamic apologist named Jamal Badawi, renowned as a “moderate Muslim,” has offered one million dollars to anyone who can find references in the Qur’an that condone “religious war, or jihad.”

The Bergen Record reported this at face value, so even though it noted that Badawi made the challenge “jokingly,” Badawi’s point was made: the Qur’an does not teach religious warfare, and it’s only media distortion that gives any other impression.

Badawi almost certainly knows better. But his “joking” offer only obfuscates the truth about how jihadists use the Qur’an to recruit and motivate terrorists — thereby blindsiding gullible Americans into thinking that mosques do not need to be monitored, and Muslims are unfairly “profiled” by law enforcement agencies. As such, Badawi’s offer is not a joke. It is a political statement, and one that harms our ability to guard against terrorist attacks on American soil.

Dr. Badawi, I want to be a millionaire. Here are a few quotes from the Qur’an:

Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (2:190-191)

Slay the disbelievers. Sounds like a religious war to me. So does this:

Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not. They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members." Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein. (2:216-217)

And this, which identifies the enemies of the Muslims as disbelievers and friends of Satan:

Let those fight in the cause of Allah Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah,- whether he is slain or gets victory - Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value). And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!" Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan. (4:74-76)

Here the religious warriors, or the angels who protect them, are to behead those who do not believe:

Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them." (8:12)

Cf. this verse, which also makes clear the religious character of the fight:

Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost. (47:4)

This one states the goal of the fighting in terms that also make clear that the war is religious:

And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. (8:39)

This one, like many others, makes it clear that the fighting that believers must do is not spiritual, but physical -- otherwise the promise that the believers will overcome long odds would make little or no sense:

O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding. (8:65)

This is the celebrated "Verse of the Sword":

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (9:5)

Again, hard to see that as spiritual or metaphorical fighting. And this one establishes that the warfare is against the People of the Book, that is, Jews and Christians:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (9:29)

There are many other such verses, but I don’t have to speak with Dr. Badawi to know what he will say about this list: I am taking the verses out of context. I can only understand them properly in the original Arabic. I need to be well-versed in the science of Qur’anic interpretation, tafsir, to be able to understand them. Only an “Islamophobe” would take such verses at face value.

Very well. But what is he going to do about Muslims who read such verses and take them at face value? For instance, the Ingushetian Shura Council in Chechyna has explained in a recent communiqué that “Allah created people so that He could be worshipped alone, so no companions are ascribed to Him, and He permitted Jihad on His Straight Way, so that the Religion of Allah could be above all, so that all areas of life could be guided by Islam, and so that the Earth could be cleansed of unbelief.” In support of this idea, the Council quoted Sura 8:39, as it appears above. Likewise, in a treatise entitled “The true meaning of Jihad” that was posted last year on several jihadists websites, one Sidik Aucbur charged that “the West” was trying to distort the meaning of jihad by teaching that “Jihad is only about struggling against our desires.” He quotes the Qur’an copiously to establish that jihad means warfare against unbelievers, and declares: “there are over 120 verses of the Qur’an that use the Shari’ [Islamic legal] meaning of Jihad to mean fighting and killing.” Aucbur adds that all four major schools of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence agree on this point: “It has been agreed upon by the classical scholars that the Shari'ah meaning of Jihad is to fight and kill the kuffar [unbelievers]: Hanafi school in the book ‘Badiia as Saniia;’ Maliki school in the book ‘Manhal Jaleel,’ Shaffi school in the book ‘al Iqnaa,’ Hanbali school in the book ‘al Mughni.’”

Aucbur is hardly eccentric in pointing out this sort of thing; such arguments are echoed by jihadists worldwide, who use passages of the Qur’an and Islamic law to recruit new jihad warriors and convince Muslims that theirs is the “true Islam.” Is Badawi unaware of all this? Rather than throw his millions around with claims that the Qur’an contains nothing in the way of exhortations to religious warfare, wouldn’t it be more honest of him to acknowledge that such passages exist and are used by jihadists, and to offer some cogent explanation of how their force can be blunted within the Islamic community — if indeed it can?

This is one of the fundamental defects of the post-9/11 discourse in America: Muslim spokesmen again and again have insisted that Americans accept that Islam is a religion of peace, without offering a shred of evidence to this effect. Meanwhile, Muslims worldwide continue to commit violence in the name of Islam, and bland denials like Badawi’s not only do nothing to stop them, but perpetuate political myths that continue to mislead Americans about the sources of terror. As long as this goes on, nothing effective can or will be done to stop the ideology of jihad terrorism from proliferating in mosques and Islamic schools in the United States and around the world.

Dr. Badawi, I hope to hear from you soon. I’m so excited about your million-dollar offer, I have already started spending the money. After you pay me, I’ll treat you to lunch in Gstaad; we’ll get there on the new Jihad Watch Learjet.

This content was used with the permission of Robert Spencer from Jihad Watch. You can read more of his work by clicking here.

The U.S. Navy on Saturday will commission its newest nuclear-powered attack submarine, the Jimmy Carter, with many new features, including multiple-warhead Nerf missiles.

President Carter, who brought peace to the middle east, vigorously defended America's right to give away the Panama Canal and, in 1994, convinced North Korea to abandon talking about its nuclear weapons, said he's honored to have his name on "one of the most powerful peacemaking devices on earth."

Jimmy Carter is the first of the American Seahare-class subs, featuring a high-tech sonar system which alerts enemy forces to its presence and a safety device on the Nerf missiles which allows firing only after an enemy missile impact.

"This new generation of nuclear submarines is designed to use trust in our enemies as our first line of defense," said an unnamed Navy spokesman.

President Carter has invited leaders from North Korea and Iran to the commissioning ceremony, during which former First Lady Rosalyn Carter, in a time-honored Navy tradition, will give the first order to "man our ship, bring her to life then park her over there by the dock!"

This satire was used with the permission of Scott Ott from Scrappleface. You can read more of his work by clicking here.

Once Howard Dean's presidential campaign went down in flames, I didn't even bother to put "Howard Dean in quotes" in the quotes section. But now that "Mad How" is back in business running the DNC, it's time to recap some of the greatest hits of the man who's now the official face of the Democratic Party. Enjoy!

Religion

"From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people." -- Howard Dean

"After hearing Dr Dean's observation, beginning with 'If you know much about the Bible - which I do', a reporter asked about his favourite New Testament book. Dr Dean named Job, adding, 'But I don't like the way it ends... in some of the books of the New Testament; the ending of the Book of Job is different... There's one book where there's a more optimistic ending, which we believe was tacked on later'. The candidate returned an hour later to confess error: Job was in the Old Testament, not the New. Beyond that slip, his recollection of 'one book where there's a more optimistic ending' is muddled; the Book of Job in the Old Testament has an upbeat ending, with God doubling Job's former wealth and giving him new children for having sustained his piety through all his trials." -- William Safire describes Howard Dean's difficulties with Job.

"Dean himself moved from Episcopalian to Congregationalist "because I had a big fight with a local Episcopal church about 25 years ago over the bike path." He does not hesitate to reveal this information or to declare that he seldom goes to church." -- Robert Novak

"My view of Christianity . is that the hallmark of being a Christian is to reach out to people who have been left behind. So I think there was a religious aspect to my decision to support civil unions." -- Howard Dean

Republicans

"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for..." -- Howard Dean

"I think a library trustee is pretty important," Dean said, during "an administration that likes book burning more than reading books." -- Howard Dean as quoted by USA Today

"The truth is the President of the United States used the same device that Slobodan Milosevic used in Serbia. When you appeal to homophobia, when you appeal to sexism, when you appeal to racism, that is extraordinarily damaging to the country." -- Howard Dean

Misc

"I don’t know. There are many theories about (9/11). The most interesting theory that I’ve heard so far—which is nothing more than a theory, it can’t be proved—is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now who knows what the real situation is? But the trouble is, by suppressing that kind of information, you lead to those kind of theories, whether they have any truth to them or not, and eventually, they get repeated as fact. So I think the president is taking a great risk by suppressing the key information that needs to go to the Kean Commission." -- Howard Dean

"I told Steve McMahon, the media guy for Dean, who was on 'Crossfire': You have one of the three most influential presidential campaigns of my lifetime. That's the good news. The bad news is the other two are McGovern and Goldwater." -- James Carville

"For me as a political figure, it was in many ways the most important event in my political life. There aren’t many people who get to do what I did." -- Howard Dean on Vermont's Civil Unions Law

"Not only are we going to New Hampshire ... we're going to South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico, and we're going to California and Texas and New York! And we're going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan. And then we're going to Washington, D.C. to take back the White House, Yeeeeeaaaaaargh!" -- Howard Dean in the Iowa concession speech that proved to be the final nail in his campaign's coffin

"We have got to stop having the campaigns run in this country based on abortion, guns, God and gays..." -- Howard Dean

Race

"I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks." -- Howard Dean

"I believe that the flag of the Confederate States of America is a painful symbol and reminder of racial injustice and slavery which (Abraham) Lincoln denounced from here over 150 years ago." -- Howard Dean

"We're going to tell all those white boys who run the Republican Party to stay out of our bedrooms." -- Howard Dean forgets what color he is.

"You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here." -- Howard Dean

"Dealing with race is about educating white folks..." -- Howard Dean

The War On Terrorism

"It's a victory for the Iraqi people ... but it doesn't have any effect on whether we should or shouldn't have had a war. ...I think in general the ends do not justify the means." -- Howard Dean after we blew away Uday & Qusay Hussein

"We've gotten rid of (Saddam Hussein), and I suppose that's a good thing" -- Howard Dean, April 9, 2003

"We don't know that yet. We don't know that yet, Wolf. We still have a country whose city is mostly without electricity. We have tumultuous occasions in the south where there is no clear governance. We have a major city without clear governance." -- Howard Dean's reply when he was asked if he Iraq was better off without Saddam, April 23, 2003

"...The capture of Saddam has not made America safer." -- Howard Dean

"I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found. I will have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials." -- Howard Dean on Bin Laden

"(9/11 & the aftermath will) require a re-evaluation of the importance of some of our specific civil liberties. I think there are going to be debates about what can be said where, what can be printed where, what kind of freedom of movement people have and whether it's OK for a policeman to ask for your ID just because you're walking down the street." -- Howard Dean after 9/11

Boy, with great ideas like this one, Howard Dean is guaranteed to take the Democrats straight to the top!

"The new chairman of the US Democratic Party, Howard Dean, cautioned his party members to avoid using the term “pro-choice” when referring to themselves, in order not to alienate potential conservative voters.

Dean, making the comments Thursday at the Democratic National Committee meeting, said, “I don't think we should use ‘pro-choice’,” because it brands Democrats as too pro-abortion, according to a New York Post report."

I'm not sure which is more obnoxious, the idea that Democrats should hide what they believe from the voters or that Howard Dean thinks anyone is dumb enough to actually buy the idea that the Dems aren't pro-abortion. Consider that,

-- The Dems last candidate for President, John Kerry, received a a 100% rating on his voting record from pro-abortion groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood.

-- Fear that conservative judges will strike down Roe V. Wade is often cited by Democrats as a reason to oppose Bush's judges.

-- One of Howard Dean's competitors for the DNC Chairmanship, Tim Roemer, by his own account, faced "vigorous and unrelenting" "(o)pposition to (his) candidacy" because he was pro-life.

-- A large majority of liberals strongly support just about any legislation that makes abortions easier to obtain and rabidly oppose any bill that makes it tougher to get an abortion. Heck, Democrats even voted against a ban on partial birth abortion almost 2 to 1 in the Senate.

But, if Democrats just don't say the words "pro-choice," nobody will figure it out, right Howard?

Come to think of it, a better question is: if Democrats are overwhelmingly pro-abortion, and anyone who follows politics knows that they are, isn't it dishonest to try to hide that from the voters? Let me answer my own question: Yes, it is...

*** Update #1 ***: From the comments section =D

"It's almost as if he's admitting that the Democrat Party's primary problem is that people are accurately perceiving their true nature." -- Christopher_Taylor

I love that. I wish I'd said it...

Prepare yourself, folks, because you are about to read excerpts of a column from a liberal who's being... ****Drumroll please**** honest and, yes, he confirms a few rotten things you probably always thought a lot of liberals believed, but didn't have the guts to say out loud.

Author Kurt Anderson in the New York Metro starts off (after a short intro), explaining how liberals think they're smarter than everyone else...

"New Yorkers think we are smarter than other Americans, that the richness and difficulty of life here give our intelligence a kind of hard-won depth and nuance and sensitivity to contradictions and ambiguity. We feel we are practically French. Most New Yorkers are also liberals. And most liberals, wherever they live, believe that they are smarter than most conservatives (particularly George W. Bush).

And finally, most liberals and New Yorkers suspect that we may be too smart for our own good. It is a form of self-flattery as self-criticism. During these past few years, I have heard it said again and again that liberals’ ineffectiveness derives from their inability to see the world in the simple blacks and whites of the Limbaughs and Hannitys and Bushes. (Why else, the argument goes, did John Kerry lose?)"

Lesson #1: Liberals tend to be arrogant elitists who believe they grasp complexities and nuances that the average "murican" is simply incapble of comprehending. So you may not understand why you should give up your tax dollars to fund abortions for 15 year-old-girls and "art" that features crucifixes dipped in urine, but liberals do. Accept that they know best and vote for them.

...But now our heroic and tragic liberal-intellectual capaciousness is facing its sharpest test since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Back then, most of us were forced, against our wills, to give Ronald Reagan a large share of credit for winning the Cold War. Now the people of this Bush-hating city are being forced to grant the merest possibility that Bush, despite his annoying manner and his administration’s awful hubris and dissembling and incompetence concerning Iraq, just might—might, possibly—have been correct to invade, to occupy, and to try to enable a democratically elected government in Iraq.

No lesson there. It's just fun watching liberals start to realize that Bush might be right =D

"Until the Iraqi vote: surprisingly smooth and inarguably inspiring and, in some local camps, unexpectedly unsettling. Of course, for all but a nutty fringe, it is not a matter of actually wishing for an insurgent victory, but rather of hating the idea of a victory presided over by the Bush team. (I may prefer the Yankees to beat the Red Sox, but I cannot bear the spectacle of Steinbrenner’s gloating.) Three months after failing to defeat Bush in our election, plenty of New Yorkers privately, half-consciously hoped for his comeuppance in Iraq’s. You know who you are. Last week, you found yourselves secretly . . . heartened—and appalled—by the stories of the Marine general who said it was “a hell of a hoot [and] fun to shoot some people” in Afghanistan, and about the possible Islamist drift of the Shiites who will now govern Iraq. When military officers show themselves to be callous warmongers, and neocon military adventurism looks untenable, certain comfortable assumptions are reaffirmed.

Like “radical chic,” a related New York specialty, “liberal guilt” once meant feeling discomfort over one’s good fortune in an unjust world. As this last U.S. election cycle began, however, a new subspecies of liberal guilt arose—over the pleasure liberals took in bad news from Iraq, which seemed sure to hurt the administration. But with Bush reelected, any shred of tacit moral rationale is gone. In other words, feel the guilt, and let it be a pang that leads to moral clarity."

Lesson #2: Just as conservatives have been saying practically since the invasion, liberals are rooting for bad news out of Iraq. There's a reason liberals in the MSM and in the blogosphere obsessively focus on negative news out of Iraq and put a negative spin on every spin: it's because it makes them feel better to think things are going badly in Iraq.

Here's more from Anderson...

"Each of us has a Hobbesian choice concerning Iraq; either we hope for the vindication of Bush’s risky, very possibly reckless policy, or we are in a de facto alliance with the killers of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. We can be angry with Bush for bringing us to this nasty ethical crossroads, but here we are nonetheless.

At a certain point during the Vietnam War, a majority of Americans—those of us who were in favor of unilateral U.S. withdrawal—were in a de facto alliance with the North Vietnamese, the Vietcong, and the Soviets. Unpleasant but true. People say that Bush was hell-bent on invading Iraq because his father muffed it during the Gulf War in ’91. But I think a bigger motive for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Desert Storm was a longing, unconscious or not, to refight Vietnam victoriously."

Lesson #3: Many liberals aren't always rooting for the "home team." At times, they would happily work against their own country if they believe it helps them politically or hurts their political foes.

If only the legions of other liberals like Kurt Anderson could be as honest as he has been...

Geeze, do those of us who are pro-life have to be as oversensitive as leftist PC weenies out there? Does this sort of enormous overreaction actually help the cause?

"Pro-abortion Hollywood has sunk to a new low. Chris Rock, the person chosen to host the year's premier entertainment awards show, has called abortion a 'beautiful thing,'" said Erik Whittington, director of American Life League's Rock for Life.

"Unfortunately these individuals do have some influence, especially over young people. Rock for Life is calling on the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to remove Chris Rock as host of this year's awards show. If the Academy keeps Rock as the host, we encourage pro-lifers to send a message to both the awards show and its sponsors by not tuning in."

Saying "I was joking" isn't an all purpose excuse that allows you to duck responsibility for anything you say. That being said, it's also a mistake to treat a comedian doing stand-up like he's a Senator doing a stump speech.

You want to make a difference on the abortion issue? Keep the heat on W. to appoint strict constructionists to the bench and in time, after someone like Sandra Day O'Connor or John Paul Stevens is replaced, Roe Vs. Wade will eventually be overturned. From there on out, it'll be a state by state fight to get abortion banned.

That's where the anti-abortion movement needs to focus its energy, not on meaningless fights with comedians...

Former Vermont Gov Unites GOP, Survey Indicates In a strong show of support for former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, 100% of likely Republican voters approve of Dr. Dean’s selection as Democratic Party chairman, a new survey indicates.

The poll, conducted by the University of Minnesota’s Opinion Research Institute, reveals that Republicans are approximately twenty times as excited about Dr. Dean’s selection as Democrats are.

According to the survey, 97% of all Republicans describe themselves as “ecstatic” about the former Vermont Governor chairing the Democratic National Committee, while 99% describe themselves as “giddy beyond belief.”

When asked how they intend to celebrate Dr. Dean’s appointment to the DNC chair, Republicans were evenly divided, with 48% saying they would “jump for joy” while 47% said they would “dance a jig.”

The results of the survey surprised many political observers, since Dr. Dean now appears to have unified the GOP more than any current Republican politician including President George W. Bush.

At DNC headquarters, the former Vermont Governor said that he was “heartened” by the poll results, telling reporters, “I knew that I had it in me to unify a party -- I just didn’t know that it would be the other one.”

Dr. Dean added that he ultimately had the ability to appeal to all Americans, Republicans and Democrats alike: “I may be from a blue state, but once I start talking my face gets really, really red.”

Elsewhere, Britain’s Prince Harry said that he is looking forward to his father’s marriage to Camilla Parker Bowles and that he has already picked out “just the right outfit” for the wedding.

This satire was used with the permission of Andy Borowitz from the Borowitz Report. You can read more of his work by clicking here.

Let's be honest here: if your car is stolen by aliens, bigfoot molests you, or you think there's a ghost haunting your doghouse, I am probably not the guy you want to come to with that information. If you've read the ACPOTI section, that is not a hard thing to figure out.

But, for some reason, a gentleman by the name of "skidiver" chose to send me a long, rambling email about the "Torture in Florida" that he's undergoing. This appears to be an original email since I was not able to Google it and I thought you'd want to read about this gentleman's...uh...problem -- and besides, I haven't done an edition of "anyone can post on the internet" in a long while.

So here are some excerpts from this email that I received earlier tonight. Incidentally, Skidiver, if you're reading this, take it from me, a former Psych major and a man who is very, very sane -- SERIOUSLY, VERY SERIOUSLY -- get help from a psychologist or a psychiatrist -- and the sooner the better. On to the email (which I edited for the sake of brevity)...

---

From: skidiver Subject: Torture in Florida

Dear Sir Ma'am

These facts are true as is my "Statement of Facts" below acting as my filed complaint with you, to start a full investagation ,please ASAP. Please read entirely because this technology has been secret for decades, you will not know of it ,unless you look up the Department of Defence contracts , RD from Universitys and Colleges I've provided along with documented victims names and NSA Court Cases. All with the same crime's M.O. for twenty years plus. Prelude: Department of Defence Radio Frequency (Microwave Spectrum ) this technology "program" made by the United States Department of Defence that destroys good citizens, both physically, emotionally and financally . I need a Lawyer to help save America from the terror of this Human Computer Interaction "program" for future children and generations .

STATEMENT OF FACTS: This is my statement of absolute truth, the facts, of what happened to me Gary N. ***** through mind control attacks of the UNITED STATES GOVERMENT ........... I'm Gary ***** born 9/20/58 Worcester Massachusetts, raised entirely in Holden Massachusetts, going through their school system, before moving to Ft. Lauderdale Florida. After 10 years there I moved to the west coast to Ft. Meyers and later Port Charlotte .

...In Ft.Lauderdale while working at Bell South, they were montering my calls at my desk but also my private Cingular Cell phone was being montored . I figured it's Bell South security,when I heard the clicks and muttering on my cell phone in the backround. When I moved to Ft Meyers I took an apartment, bought a Verizon phone, lived at the Polos and bought a home in Port Charlotte to remodel .When I heard people pick-up on my cell phone like at Bell South when they were monitoring me, I was swearing at them and saying what are you going to do next send someone after me ?

... I don't know exactly when it all started but after I moved to the West coast of Florida and around 5/21/04 I started hearing super high pitched tones at night and a woman's voice saying "crazy" 24 hours a day round the clock at 1-3 minute increments like a looped computer phrase.

...On 5/23/04 I yelled at my neibor because I thought his girlfriend was calling me "crazy" at 1-3 minute intervils 24 hours a day and ridiculing me.I told him to stop and threatened him if he doesn't leave me alone. This lasted round the clock for months changing increments to 10 minutes, 30 minutes amd more.

...On 5/25/04 working on my home in Port Charlotte I heard voices calling me "p*ssy" round the clock and I went into the woods figureing maybe the new neibors didn't like me . I couldn't find anyone and tried to go back to work but to no avail.

...I went to the Store 24 in the South end of Worcester,Massachusetts where in the store I was talking to a man, after finishing the conversation , I walked away, when nearing the door I heard his same voice call me an "@sshole" I turned and of course he didn't it was just the super-computer taking his voice digitalizing it and someone using speech to speech or text to speech , via the department of defence microwave spectrum, saying @sshole in his voice directly, to my brain.I realized this is the super computer just in time before I said anything, and learning this is part of the "program", "application" our department of defence has to drive an American Citizen insane, to fights, conflicts, and/or suicides or institutionalized using department of defence computers and airwaves, the same criminal M.O. I found out for 20 years of victims.This type of department of defence supercomputer provocation happened many more times especially with neibors voices ,which is part of our department of defence application/program to destroy a Citizen .

...Of course they took me to the "nut house" 8th floor UMASS Medical Plantation St Worcester Massachusetts room ***.

...When the voices had names and played a rape of my 82 year old WW2 vet mom -they said this is Cheney and Wolforvitz and my mom said "get off me Cheney" in her actual voice, through my skull into my brain, with a whole rape senerio with my mom screaming. I called the next day and she didn't sound herself she sounded shaken up, this rape of my mom they played for a week staight 24/7 over and over in my mind "through the skull" voice twenty four hours a day via their NSA computer through the Department of Defence radio frequency microwave spectrum, on a "looped" recording of the event.

....There was another senerio lasting days with the dead Saddam Hussain sons over my Mother's house torturing her, Ouidi and Cousi, they said they were while threatning my 82 year old WW2 vet MOM.

...I went to the Bank ATM and my First National Bank of Florida debit/visa card, the one I opened at Del Prado road in Cape Coral would not work at all, even though I had plenty of money in it. I just found out this January 2005 that the debit/visa card has been taken out of the bank computer completely after a voice saying it was Porter Goss said he "froze my accounts" . This debit/visa card was taken out and wiped clean out of the computer.

...At the same time I was in the bahamas being mind controled and transported by U.S. Military helicopter the so-called "Bush threat Assessment Team" called my brother in Toronto,Canada. WHO were these Bush Threat Assessment Team ? Were they actually the Bush Mind-Control team,calling at the same time I was being TORTURED, threatened, controled and transported with U.S. Military helicopter in the Country of the Bahamas. I was taunted by voices saying "we got you Iraqi."

....After I heard a miltary voice say later on "I don't know where they got the Gitmo Software" "I don't know where they got the Gitmo software" "I don't know how it got out of Gitanamo Bay" This must have been the software program that takes away a person's will to live used before at Gitmo Bay,Cuba.

...These weapons have downloaded dreams into me triggered while sleeping, one of my WW2 Vet Air Force father being thrown into a dug grave naked while the voice of President George H.W.Bush saying my father was MKDelta's project code blue, and another voice who said he was Col.David Moorehouse or Westmooreland who said he did organ heating to my father.

....Also another senerio with John Kerry's voice coming to rescue me with explosions ,gunshots and images of him outside the Bahamas Nassau Downtown Central jail.That lasted 8 hours and more. My own father ,a WW2 Air Force vet gunner ,Norman A *****'s memory were tarnished by these terrorists. Barbara Boxer's name and voice talked with her for about a week, also senerio's of JFK Jr's plane going down with images and a voice that said they took care of JFK Jr's "magnetics...."

...So they use family, friends, girlfriends, bin Laden, the Bush family, the Bush Cabinet and more to torture citizens WHY? They tell me they are going to kill my Mom then my Mother has brain/blood barrier leak, these are the facts. They used the Dick Cheney and Jeb Bush as the biggest torturers along with the Bush family including the elderly Barbara Bush with images of them on a computer and in a virtual reality room with a virtual reality glove to torture me while at the same time using their voices "through the skull" to torture me, taunt me and ridicule me...probably to make believe in their virtual loss of reality world that bin Laden terrorist are behind it when it is all documented for over 23 years and all department of defence microwave spectrum, department of defence contracts and department of defence financed and researched technology by schools and universitys financed by the Office of Navy Research and Darpa, with military helicopter transports, and Bush goverment phone calls to my brother in Canada, with scripted questions and the same M.O. for over 23 years.

This would almost be funny if it weren't so tragic & perverse...

"French politicians and activists seeking a new trial and freedom for convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal were welcomed in a Friday rally at City Hall and given replicas of the Liberty Bell.

"This is a disgrace," she said. "It is a slap in the face for all of law enforcement."

So you have Democrats teaming up with Frenchmen to try to spring cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal from jail over the protestations of the murdered police officer's widow?

Now me? I think Mumia should fry. But unlike the Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys and their Democratic allies in Philadelphia, I'm more concerned about the cops than the people who murder them -- even if the murderer is a dedicated lefty who can convince a bunch of naive hippies to carry "Free Mumia" protest signs at peace rallies. So, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue.

Just when you've seen the bottom of the feverswamp that the left loves to wallow in, along comes a story that truly shows the fathomless depths to which they're happily willing to sink.

I've already briefly touched on how the story has driven the left side of the blogosphere around the bend, the tale of Jeff Gannon (AKA James Guckert), a reporter almost nobody had ever heard of, who the left branded a heretic for the crime of being a gay, conservative reporter who had some very spurious connections to the Valerie Plame controversy. That was enough to inflame the left. But, then evidence was presented that seemed to indicate that Gannon may have been a "gay prostitute," and if you thought they were hyped up before, after that revelation became public knowledge, they were like 4 year-olds who've been fed nothing but Pixie Stix and Sweet Tarts for a week.

One problem: Gannon is still a nobody. Doing an expose on him is like revealing all the secrets of the Assistant Manager at your local grocery store: why should anyone care?

So now the key is to tie everything to the Bush administration, because as we know, they are the source of all evil in the universe, and as we've learned over the last few weeks of watching how the left side of the blogosphere has covered this story, gays who don't vote for Democrats are apparently one of the universe's evils.

Which brings us to a grotesque & ridiculous post on Democrats.com. If the left side of the blogosphere had any sense of common decency or scruples, this one post would be enough to destroy the reputation of Democrats.com. But alas, given the state of liberal America, this post will probably make them more popular.

I'm not going to bother with the links in the post, go here to read them if you like, but I do want you to read excerpts from what passes for "journalism" on the left side of the blogosphere. This is from a post entitled, "Did George W. Bush Have Sex with That Man, James Guckert?"

"...Sooner or later, Washington will have to ask: Did George W. Bush Have Sex with That Man, James Guckert?

Sooner or later, the truth shall set America free."

That's nothing but rumors, smears & base speculation of the worst sort...I wonder how long it will be before it makes the New York Times? Moreover, is it just me or are these wackos in effect saying that it was scandalous that detailed investigations into the sexual histories of reporters weren't done before they were allowed to ask questions to government officials? So if partisan hack, Helen Thomas, were to turn out to be involved in some sex scandal, would George Bush be responsible for that, too? Does the FBI need to have a file somewhere with a list of every person she ever had sex with along with details about whether her partners were women or men? If there were any sort of intellectual consistency on the left in regard to this story -- and quite frankly there hasn't been much -- that would seem to be where they were going with this.

The left has come a long way from when Clinton was in office, back when they were claiming that sex, and even perjury related to it, was irrelevant to the job of being President. Now? The President is responsible for knowing about the sex lives of the reporters who're asking him questions. Boy, the left has come a long way in a short time...

Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds for bring this story to my attention. Apparently, they sent him a PRESS RELEASE about the post referenced above which is a bit like videotaping yourself robbing a store and then asking the police to critique your technique.

"College student Jayson Just commutes an odometer-spinning 2,000 miles a month. As CBS News Correspondent Sandra Hughes reports, his monthly gas bill once topped his car payment.

And that saves him almost $300 a month in gas."

Whether you're a liberal or a conservative, this story would seem to be good news, would it not? We have a student using the sort of technology liberals have been talking up for more than a decade and yet it's practical because it saves him money, something conservatives can get behind.

So everybody's happy, right? Wrong.

This "good news" is inspiring government toadies to come up with new taxes, massive new regulations, and an invasion of privacy worse than anything that John Ashcroft supposedly came up with. How can that be? Read on...

"And that saves him almost $300 a month in gas. It's great for Just but bad for the roads he's driving on, because he also pays a lot less in gasoline taxes which fund highway projects and road repairs. As more and more hybrids hit the road, cash-strapped states are warning of rough roads ahead.

"We're getting a lot of interest from other states," says Jim Whitty of the Oregon Department of Transportation. "They're watching what we're doing."

Oh yeah, this is a great idea. I mean, who could be opposed to letting the government track your car's every movement with GPS so they can tax you for it? It would be like figuratively having Robert Byrd sitting next to you in your car with a little ledger pad, chortling with glee every time the odometer turned over because that would mean he could get to take more of your money away to spend on pork barrel projects he could name after himself in West Virginia.

Of course, aside from the fact that this means "Big Brother" would be riding in the car with us everywhere we go, we'll have new government regulations, higher priced cars, and a brand new tax...as if the government doesn't already have enough ways to swipe our money.

This one of the worst ideas to come down the pike in a long, long, time...

*** Update #1***: More on this from Bill Hobbs.

You might be a Democrat just like him, heck, you might even become President, but to Charles Rangel (and a lot of other liberals like him), if you come from Southern states like Arkansas or Texas, you'll never be anything more than a redneck...

"Rep. Charlie Rangel is blasting ex-President Bill Clinton as "a redneck" after New York Sen. Hillary Clinton refused for the second year in a row to support his bill to help the mother of police shooting victim Amadou Diallo stay in the country.

"You have to remember, you know, Lyndon Johnson was one of the best presidents we had and he was a redneck out of Texas," he explained."

This is sort of attitude is exactly why Northern liberals like Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry always bomb in the South. Usually, they're not this indelicate, but the attitude comes through loud and clear...

"Of course, everyone who lives in states like Arkansas & Texas are ignorant, sister marryin', inbred rednecks. If they weren't, why would they be livin' in the South? Oh and all of you Southerners vote for us the next time there's an election because you dumb hicks need suave sophisticates like us to run your life. Now, let me explain why you don't need guns, but you do need gay marriage...hey, pay attention "Southie," we know how easily people like you get distracted by Bibles, televangelists, and attractive first cousins so keep your eyes front and center and your ears open because your betters are talking..."

Zell Miller has warned them about this..

"If Southern voters think you don't understand them -- or even worse, much worse, if they think you look down on them -- they will never vote for you."

...but they never listen.

Results of the recent democratic elections in Iraq show that voters failed to fill the power vacuum created when Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime was overthrown, and instead elected a national assembly "destined to be a quagmire of compromise."

"How can this government achieve anything without a dominant political party backed by a fiercely loyal military?" said an unnamed Iraq expert at a non-partisan American think tank, "I'm afraid you're going to hear nothing but talk and concessions from this assembly."

Neither the Shiites, nor the Kurds, nor Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's party garnered enough votes to unilaterally achieve their goals. As a result each party must reach out to the others to form a national unity government or to achieve concensus on issues of contention.

"It doesn't bode well for those accustomed to the decisive action that was the hallmark of Saddam's government," said the American expert. "This is another major failure of the Bush administration's foreign policy."

After the election results announcement, the popular disappointment was palpable, at least among correspondents in the hotel lounges where international journalists spend most of their days.

"I've already contacted my editor and asked for a new assignment," said one American reporter. "This is going to be like covering Congress. Where's the fun in that?"

Satire used with the permission of Scott Ott from Scrappleface. You can read more of his work by clicking here.

You would think that "Easongate" would lead to a bit of introspection among members of the old media considering the circumstances. Here we have a powerful figure in the media, Eason Jordan, CNN's chief news executive, apparently claiming that the military was targeting journalists. The story blew up all across the right side of the blogosphere and on talk radio despite Jordan's stonewalling, while the MSM, for the most part ignored it. Then, after the buzz didn't die away, CNN unceremoniously dumped Jordan.

Given all of that, you might think that members of the MSM would be concerned. After all, how could it be that a powerful member of the media was fired after making controversial remarks that stirred up a maelstrom of criticism without the story even being deemed newsworthy enough to make the LA Times before Jordan was canned? So where are the editors scratching their heads about how a story like this managed to creep under their radar? They seem to be few and far between.

Instead, the most prevalent catty meme du jour in the MSM seems to be, "Who do these bloggers think they are?"

From the The New York Times...

"Steve Lovelady, a former editor at The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Wall Street Journal and now managing editor of CJR Daily, the Web site of The Columbia Journalism Review, has been among the most outspoken.

"The salivating morons who make up the lynch mob prevail," he lamented online after Mr. Jordan's resignation. He said that Mr. Jordan cared deeply about the reporters he had sent into battle and was "haunted by the fact that not all of them came back."

The New York Post notes another critic,

"Bertrand Pecquerie, director of the World Editors Forum, the organization for editors within the World Association of Newspapers, please. Mourning Jordan's decision to step down, Pecquerie likened bloggers to the "sons of Senator McCarthy" and "scalps' hunters."

Even The Wall Street Journal chimes in...

"More troubling to us is that Mr. Jordan seems to have "resigned," if in fact he wasn't forced out, for what hardly looks like a hanging offense. It is true that Mr. Jordan has a knack for indefensible remarks, including a 2003 New York Times op-ed in which he admitted that CNN had remained silent about Saddam's atrocities in order to maintain its access in Baghdad. That really was a firing offense. But CNN stood by Mr. Jordan back then -- in part, one suspects, because his confession implicated the whole news organization. Now CNN is throwing Mr. Jordan overboard for this much slighter transgression, despite faithful service through his entire adult career.

No doubt this point of view will get us described as part of the "mainstream media." But we'll take that as a compliment since we've long believed that these columns do in fact represent the American mainstream. We hope readers buy our newspaper because we make grown-up decisions about what is newsworthy, and what isn't."

Besides the MSM's embarassment at being beaten to the punch by a bunch of conservative bloggers who never bothered with journalism school, there's more than a little bit of hypocrisy at work here.

Remember that there's nothing the MSM loves more than sticking it to Republicans, so much so that they'll run just about any flimsy accusation. Bernard's Kerik's "affairs?" Fair game. Wild allegations about the Bush family's private life from Kitty Kelley? Bring 'em on! Accusing George Bush of being a deserter and AWOL? Sounds good!

But when the spotlight turns in the other direction and the Eason Jordans & Dan Rathers are asked to be accountable for their smears, "That's unfair," "That's out of bounds," "That's not cricket, old chap!" Fifteen years ago, a story like this would have never made the news because the old media would have turned their noses up at it, decided that it was information that the public didn't need to know, and there would have been no one else to dig the news out of the hole the MSM buried it in. That's how it worked in the "bad old days" before the new media, but much to the chagrin of the MSM, those days are gone forever and the public is being better served for it...

RWN got another mention on CNN in an Eason Jordan related segment called Bitten by Blogs. It's nothing too flashy, occurs at roughly the 2:33 mark on the video, and I believe they're referring to The Top 125 Political Websites On The Net Version 5.0.

One of the ideas that many members of the kooky left buy into is that every time a prominent Democrat dies, it's because George Bush had him killed. If -- God forbid -- a Democratic Senator were killed tomorrow in a plane crash, car wreck, by a fatal disease, you name it, left-wingers across the net from Alternet to Ted Rall to Indy Media to The Smirking Chimp to Counterpunch to Bartcop to the Democratic Underground would all be suggesting that Bush had them rubbed out for some reason. It's what they did when Paul Wellstone died. It's just how their brains are wired.

Want an example of how these people think? Then take a look at a thread called, "Would the Republicans have Dean "rubbed out" if they perceive him as a real threat" from the Democratic Underground. It captures the mentality perfectly...

patricia92243: "Would the Republicans have Dean "rubbed out" if they perceive him as a real threat - by bringing the Democratic Party back to being in real competition to them? I'm convinced that is what happened to JFK - he was "terminated" so there would not be a Kennedy dynasty. In my opinion, the big-wigs in the Republican party are really, seriously dangerous. I worry about our guy."

d_b: "I agree with that much. Stay the hell away from light aircraft."

kaitykaity: "Yeah, he needs to stay out of small planes. The Pugs got two of their Senate seats that way -- Carnahan and Wellstone."

rwenos: "He'll Need Personal Security. For sure he'll need personal security, if he doesn't already have it. The mere existence of Rumsfeld's private staff of spooks confirms that need.

If that changes, and the polls surge our way in 2006, then Dean will need to think about electronic countermeasures (which SHOULD now be in place in Democratic National Headquarters -- have we learned nothing from history?)"

xxqqqzme: "You're joking - right? Howard is the one person saurove is would love 2 destroy. Dean is the one yelling the emporer has no clothes."

AntiCoup2K4: "And yet they were both known to be in Dallas. Tricky Dick was at a Pepsi board meeting. Poppy can't account for his whereabouts. The picture of the figure in the doorway of the book depository could be him, but it's not conclusive. Though it's highly unlikely that Poppy was one of the shooters, he was probably the "supervisor" on that particular CIA mission, as he was on the Bay of Pigs operation.

D@mn shame that the only two Bush operations that did NOT fail were the assassination of JFK and the establishment of the Bin Laden led mujahadeen which later became "Al Qaeda"."

Boy howdy, I likes me them essay contests. Trouble is, I think they're rigged. Like a couple of years ago, when the DNC had an essay contest on the theme of "Why I Am a Democrat." Even after emailing them my entry twenty or thirty times, and after several hundred follow-up phone calls, I still don't know which prize I won.

Still, I just can't resist the thrill of the competion, the intoxicating aroma from the arena of essay combat. That's why I was excited to learn (through Logical Meme) that The American Prospect magazine is soliciting 30-word or less "elevator pitches" for The Liberal Agenda:

Well, we all know the basic outline of conservatism's elevator pitch: "We believe in freedom and liberty, and we're for low taxes, less government, traditional values, and a strong national defense." But what is liberalism's? We at the Prospect have, among us, attended or sat on about eleventy hundred panels since the election at which someone invariably says something like the following: "We know what conservatives stand for. But what do we stand for?" No one in Washington seems to know. So we turn to you. Give us liberalism's elevator pitch.

Will any of my entries win? To ask the question is to misunderstand the soul of the essay competitor. For, at the end of the day, the true essay contest warrior does not look to the scoreboard; the true victor wipes off the blood of the battlefield, limps to the sideline, and says: "I gave my all."

DAVE'S ELEVATOR PITCHES FOR THE LIBERAL AGENDA

-- Feel how this elevator is moving up? That's what Liberalism is about: moving people up. Hey you zombies, stop looking at the door! I'm talking to you! About Liberalism.

-- Unlike jingoistic Conservatism, Liberalism is complex and very hard to boil down to thirty words or less, but I will: The essence of Liberalism is freedom. And progress. And... wait a minute. That first part doesn't count against the thirty word limit, does it? I'm sure there were some hyphenates, and think I used 'it' and 'in' a couple of times, so they really shouldn't count. C'mon dude, do-over.

-- I'll tell you what it Liberalism doesn't stand for: Bush. And you can just take that to the bank, mister. D@mn straight. Mmm hmm. Okay, how many words is that?

-- Liberalism means unfettered freedom of speech, relentlessly speaking your mind, without... hey man, you're getting off on the wrong floor! This is only 8! I saw you push 32!

-- If not for safety laws passed by Liberals, this elevator would now be plummeting helplessly to the bottom of the shaft. And a fat lot of good your precious Jesus would do you.

-- Even in your advanced gestation, Liberals stand for your right to a safe, legal abortion. You're not pregnant? Whoaaa, my bad. tch-tch-tch-tch-tchoot... I hate these uncomfortable silences, don't you?

-- What do Liberals stand for? Just look around this elevator: braille buttons for the blind; official elevator permits; and this brave African-American passenger, finally freed from her slavemasters -- by Liberals.

-- Liberalism means expanding marriage rights to gay couples like you. Not gay? Oh. I just thought, well, you guys looked, umm, tch-tch-tch-tch-tchoot...

-- Liberals believe that everyone deserves a ride on the elevator of freedom. Let us now push each button as a testament to our commitment to inclusion.

-- Let's move beyond the old tired arguments about who's to blame for the fart. Liberals, like me, want to work together to find a vent to our common elevator car.

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

These advertisers spent good money with RWN and being a capitalist, I like to make sure they get their money's worth. So, how 'bout checking out a few of the links below? It's good for me, it's good for RWN, heck, it's even good for the whole blogosphere. The better advertisers do in the blogosphere, the more companies that will be willing to spend money with blogs, the stronger the new media gets, the weaker CBS, CNN, the New York Times and the rest of old media will get....well, until they buy all of us bloggers out and we end up working for "the man"....Oh, sorry...I was having a sweet dream about selling out and making wheelbarrows full of sweet, sweet, money! Anyway, until that day comes, click on my advertisers. I'd do it for you...well, until I was bought out by MSNBC and then I could have my intern click on the ads for me because I'd be too busy counting the zeros on my checks...

The Case Against Capital
Iraqi Truth Project
The Opinion Journal's Political Diary
Matt Furey Combat Conditioning
RightTalk Online Radio
Right-Wing Stuff
Studentcon
Thank You Tony Blair
Wuzzadem
VitaminUSA

Peter Schweizer is the author of several books including Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism & was the Executive Producer of "In The Face Of Evil: Reagan's War In War And Deed." I was a huge fan of the book and the movie, would highly recommend both of them, and was very pleased to get an opportunity to do a phone interview with Peter last week. Here is the edited transcript of our conversation...(Cont)