Question: What are your views on the Flag Burning Amendment that was passed again today by the house? Do you think it will pass the senate? And if it passes the senate do you think it will be ratified by the states? -- nolan1286

I strongly support the flag burning Amendment, but think it should be unnecessary because the states should be able to ban flag burning without violating the First Amendment. As Judge Bork argued in "Slouching Towards Gomorrah:"

"Nor is it unusual for the First Amendment to ban particular modes of expression. One supposes (though one is no longer quite sure) that government could still prohibit the telecasting of political views in obscenities or the expression of them by loudspeaker at three in the morning in a residential neighborhood." -- P.100

Mark Levin over at The Corner pointed out another precedent that shows that banning the desecration of the flag need not be considered a First Amendment violation:

"In 2003, in Virginia v. Black, the Supreme Court upheld by 5 to 4 a Virginia law banning cross-burning on public or private property. The Court reached this result by contending that such expression is a form of terror and intimidation. Just as cross-burning is a particularly heinous form of speech, to many flag-burning is as well, but for different reasons. The flag is a uniquely American symbol, which is why it flies over government buildings, is carried into war, and drapes the coffins of those soldiers who died defending us. Sometimes these debates about priorities and so forth are too sterile. My grandfather, a Marine who fought at Iwo Jima and Guam, would have considered this amendment a priority. He saw fellow Marines lose their lives raising our flag over conquered territory."

The flag is a unique symbol of America and desecrating it in public is in my opinion a particularly provocative and offensive act. That's why 48 states had flag-protection laws before the Supreme Court casually tossed aside the decisions of all those state legislatures in 1989.

Unfortunately, I expect that the Amendment will come up short again in the Senate because the majority of the Democrats will fight it all the way. All I can say is that I hope Republicans get a chance to throw those "nay" votes back in their faces during the 2006 election cycle.

Question: Given the continued(and largely self inflicted) marginalization of the Democratic Party, mixed with increasing disenfranchisement of both libertarian and socially conservative Republicans, do you think it is likely we will see one or more influential new political parties emerge soon? What pros and cons do you see in this scenario vs. our traditional two party system?

Personally, I have always favored the two party system, but I no longer believe it is capable of bringing about any of the type of changes I support. I used to believe Libertarians could influence the Republican party from within (take Ron Paul as a good example). I have recently become convinced that there are irreconcilable differences between libertarian and socially conservative factions in the party which would cause the social conservatives to quickly jump ship should libertarians ever gain significant influence. With that in mind, I think more political parties would serve mostly to create political 'gridlock'... which today's GOP controlled government has convinced me is a net benefit for our country. -- President_Friedman

Answers: Before I answer this question, let me emphasize something: I do not dislike Libertarians. Let me say it again, just to make sure people don't misunderstand: I do not dislike Libertarians. Ok, now before I go forward, let me add this:

*** Warning: Blunt, unpleasant truths that will make Libertarians unhappy will be revealed in this post. Please, do not continue if you can't take the constructive criticism ***

To begin with, because of the way that the American political system is set-up, it's almost impossible for third parties to gain traction. Just consider the difficulties third parties have getting on the ballots in some states, the winner takes all nature of the electoral college, the fact that any great idea a third party comes up with will be co-opted by either the Dems or the GOP, and the staggering amounts of money & manpower both the Republican and Democratic Parties already have available in every state.

Yes, you might see fluke wins by independents or third party candidates here and there (Jesse Ventura, for example), but it's much more likely that candidates outside the major parties will only be spoilers to the party that most closely matches their views (Think Teddy Roosevelt, Ross Perot, & Ralph Nader).

Moving on to the Libertarian Party in particular, let's face it: you almost have to be a political wonk to be a Libertarian. It's just not a party that people who aren't very interested in politics are going to gravitate towards. So, you've probably cut out 50%+ of the American population right there. Next up, lefties are never, ever going to sign on with the LP because Libertarians are all about small government and that's antithetical to everything the left believes economically. Then when it comes to the conservatives, as you say, Libertarians and most conservatives have unbridgeable gaps when it comes to social issues. So, you're down to a pretty small group of people whom the Libertarian party has any opportunity to bring onboard.

And that's even setting aside that while there are plenty of rational, logical, likeable, well informed Libertarians worth paying attention to out there -- like Neil Boortz, Glenn Reynolds, & Milton Friedman -- the Libertarian movement is just riddled with kooks.

I mean just look at the Human Rights Section of the Libertarian Party Platform for God's sake:

"The Issue: We condemn the violations of human rights in all nations around the world. We particularly abhor the widespread and increasing use of torture for interrogation and punishment. The violation of rights and liberty by other governments can never justify foreign intervention by the United States government. Today, no government is innocent of violating human rights and liberty, and none can approach the issue with clean hands.

...Transition: Until a global triumph for liberty has been achieved, we support both political and revolutionary actions by individuals and groups against governments that violate rights. In keeping with our goal of peaceful international relations, we call upon the United States government to cease its hypocrisy and its sullying of the good name of human rights.

So no government -- including the US -- is innocent of violating human rights and the LP supports "revolutionary actions" against those governments. A fair reading of that is that the Libertarian Party officially supports terrorist attacks against the United States.

That just screams, "We're a bunch of crazy wackos!"

And if that didn't do it, here's a little info on the last Libertarian candidate for President, Michael Badnarik. Read this and tell me that this guy doesn't come off as way too eccentric to be elected as dogcatcher, much less President:

Badnarik believes that the federal income tax has no legal authority and that people are justified in refusing to file a tax return until such time as the IRS provides them with an explanation of its authority to collect the tax. He hadn't filed income tax returns for several years. He moved from California to Texas because of Texas' more liberal gun laws, but he refused to obtain a Texas driver's license because the state requires drivers to provide their fingerprints and Social Security numbers. He has been ticketed several times for driving without a license; sometimes he has gotten off for various technical legal reasons, but on three occasions he has been convicted and paid a fine. He also refused to use postal ZIP codes, seeing them as "federal territories."

Put this whole package together, folks, and you get: "Hi, I'm a Libertarian candidate. I want to legalize crack, make prostitution legal, favor abortion on demand and gay marriage, want to open the border..oh, and I want to radically change the tax system, the structure of government, and gut the military. Vote for me in 2008."

It's. Never. Going. To. Happen. Never.

So, if you ask me, Libertarians would make more of an impact by picking the party that best fits their views, joining up, and trying to influence them from within. Will Libertarians gain great influence in either Party? Probably not, but they don't have great influence now, nor are more than a handful of Libertarians likely to ever rise above the level of spoiler on the national level.

That's why joining up with the Republicans or Democrats is still the best way to go for Libertarians in my opinion.

Question: "God does not appear in the US constitution. Why does Christianity appear to play such a major role in US political thinking?" -- simonbegg

Answer: There are two major reasons for that in my opinion.

#1) America is an overwhelmingly Christian nation that was originally settled in large part by people looking for religious freedom and fleeing religious persecution. Moreover, God is all over monuments in Washington, on our money, and the very First Amendment to the Constitution was designed in part to insure religious liberties (although its meaning has been perverted by the courts). If you look at our country's history, heritage, and the current percentage of the population that's Christian in the US, it shouldn't surprise anyone that Christianity has a big impact on politics in the US.

#2) Whether you're talking about prayer in schools, Roe v. Wade, gay marriage, or any number of other issues, the courts have stepped in and overruled state legislatures in ways that a lot of Christians not only find offensive, but also believe are contrary to State Constitutions and/or the Constitution. As a result of that, more religious people have decided to get involved in politics in order to protect their rights and have an impact on the judges who are put on the bench.

Put another way, over the last few decades in particular, secularists & anti-Christian groups like the ACLU pushed Christians with the help of liberal judicial activists on the bench and that convinced many Christians that they needed to enter the political arena and push back.

I made Howard Kurtz's Media Notes in the WAPO again. This time it's for my post commenting on Bill Kristol's speculation that it'll be O'Connor stepping down instead of Rehnquist.

The lion's share of the post was spent railing against the possibility of Bush selecting Alberto Gonzales for the SCOTUS. I did note that it's entirely possible the nomination could be defeated if Dems voted en masse against Gonzales and Republicans felt the heat from conservative lobbying groups.

Kurtz says that he's "not positive the Dems would go to the mat against the less-than-hard-line Gonzales." I'm not 100% positive that they would either. In fact, if they were smart, they'd welcome a Gonzales appointment.

But...

-- The Democrats are in pure knee-jerk opposition mode right now
-- They're sure to strongly oppose anybody Bush puts up for the SCOTUS
-- It would be particularly galling to them to see Bush put up the first Hispanic nominee
-- 35 of them voted against Gonzales to be AG
-- The loony liberal base hates Gonzales because he's Bush's buddy and because of the "torture memos" he wrote. Sure, to the average person, there's nothing wrong or incriminating in those memos, but to the left it makes Gonzales another Torquemada.

Would that equate to 45-50 Democrats voting against Gonzales? I think it's likely that it would. Then the pressure would be on the Republican Senators, who'd be lobbied by conservatives -- already angry conservatives, I might add, who're furious that they were sold out in the gang of 7 debacle -- to vote against Gonzales and defeat the nomination. All I can say is that it wouldn't be a fun spot to be in for guys like Rick Santorum and John Kyl who are up for reelection in 2006. Do you cheese off the President whose support you want during the election or the people who're most inclined to contribute money and vote for you next year? It's a tough call.

Know what would make it even tougher? If people like James Dobson and Rush Limbaugh were to publicly say that if Gonzales were to be confirmed to the Supreme Court, that any Republican Senator who voted for him shouldn't be supported by conservatives for reelection in 2006.

On the other hand, maybe that last part is just a nightmare scenario designed to circulate and scare the White House off from nominating a moderate like Gonzales. Of course, a little preemptive lobbying along those lines on the part of people like Rush, Dobson, Hugh Hewitt, National Review, etc., etc., could insure that Gonzales isn't ever given the nod in the first place and almost insure that a conservative justice would get that spot.

It certainly wouldn't be a bad idea...hint, hint...

Question: "Should all 'hacking' be a crime? Or do you think that some hackers actually do some good." -- Chairman_Mao

Answer: Way back in the day when I ran Brass Knuckles Webzine, I read a couple of books about hackers, read some of the online hacking websites semi-regularly, interviewed a couple of hackers, and even had a hacker on my ICQ list. I certainly wasn't an expert on the subject (and never did any hacking myself), but I had an opportunity to at least see where some of the hackers were coming from.

Since then, I've also had an opportunity to work for an ISP wholesaler, talk to some online security experts, and got a general idea of the sort of problems hacking caused on the other side of the fence.

The truth is that most hackers aren't doing anyone any good. Sure, you'll find the occasional white hat hacker who harasses terrorists or finds a vulnerability in a system and quietly informs the people involved of the problem without exploiting or damaging their system, but hackers like that are rare.

From what I've seen of hackers, most of them are bored teenagers and college age kids who get a thrill out of breaking into systems and maybe doing damage, maybe not. In any case, they're a huge pain in the butt because once they break in, you have to ASSUME they're looking to do harm.

It's like finding out that someone is sneaking into your house. Maybe, they just like to sit on the furniture and watch the TV. In any case, they're not supposed to be there and in order to keep them out, you may spend countless manhours and piles of money.

This is what a lot of hackers just don't seem to get: even if they're not malicious -- and that can be a big if -- companies may still have to spend tens of thousands of dollars on software, new routers, consulting time, you name it, just to keep them out.

A few years back, the counter to that I'd always see was: "Well, it's the fault of the people who got hacked for not keeping their security up." No, no, no. If you leave your wallet -- stuffed with cash -- in an unlocked car, that's not a smart thing to do. However, that doesn't mean it's OK to steal the cash or even just to get in the car and listen to the radio. It's not your car; you shouldn't be there.

So, yeah, I think hackers should be prosecuted, although I do think the costs incurred by the person or company hacked as well as whether the hacker was malicious or not should be taken into account. The sort of hackers who are destroying files, stealing credit card info, creating viruses, and doing denial of service attacks? They deserve jail time as far as I'm concerned. On the other hand, if you're talking about a first time offender who's trying out some script online, is non-malicious, and doesn't do any damage: a slap on the wrist and a stern warning would probably be more appropriate.

Question: "Where do you think the Republican Party should stand on teaching evolution/ID in public schools? Should we let the scientific community decide - or should non-scientists have a say in scientific matters even if they are at odds with the scientific community itself?

What's your opinion of evolution?

Where do you think most of your party stands?" -- brs04wsc

Answer: Personally, I don't spend a lot of time talking about evolution because my views on the subject tend to come across as very convoluted. However, I'll take a crack at explaining my position since I got a question on it.

The short version is that I'm skeptical of evolution, but for non-religious reasons. Furthermore, I do believe God created the earth, but I don't believe creationism should be taught in the classroom.

Now, let me flesh that out a bit.

While obviously we can see changes within a species, I don't buy into the central tenet of evolution: that over time, one species can become another species.

Put another way, if the whole planet were populated by nothing but 10 billion racoons and we left it that way for 500 million years, I believe that if you looked in at the end of that period of time, you'd see every variation of racoon imaginable, but you wouldn't see any birds, fish, squirrels, lizards, cats, etc.

Admittedly, this is extremely difficult to prove one way or the other because the changes are supposed to take place over millions of years and we haven't been around to catalogue it.

Of course, there are proponents of evolution who say that very slight changes in a plant called goatsbeard (along with a few even less impressive examples) prove one species can change into another, but I think that's a thin reed to hang your hat on if you're trying to prove that all life on earth started with single cell organisms and evolved from there.

From there, most people usually ask: "Well, if not evolution, then what?" As Donald Rumsfeld has been known to say, "That answer is above my pay grade."

Moving on to creationism, I do believe God created the earth. But, that's religion, not science, and thus it has no business being taught in a science classroom.

So, I'm of the opinion that evolution should be taught, but it should be treated like what it is: the prevailing scientific theory, but one that could quite possibly be wrong.

As to where the GOP stands on evolution vs. creationism, most of the people who would like to see creationism replace or at least be taught side by side with evolution are Christian Republicans, but the GOP as a whole is all over the place on the issue.

In any case, this is really a matter that should be decided on the local level. As I noted earlier, I don't think that creationism should be taught in a science class, but the parents and staff at the schools should be able to make their own choices about what's taught to the children.

Told ya my views on the subject are convoluted...

Question: "Do you read all the comments? Skim through them? What are your over all thoughts and impressions of the day to day dialogue here." -- cmcnally

Answer: I usually read the first few replies on all the posts and on a good number of them, I read everything. However, this being the internet, a good portion of the posts almost immediately get off topic and they also tend to get a bit repetitive for someone who has been reading them for years like I have (i.e. Some of the people who've been around a while tend to find a way to repeat pretty close to the same spiel in every thread). On those posts, I tend to skim to just keep an eye out for new user names I haven't seen before, since users who've been around for months or years without getting banned aren't likely to be a problem.

Also, since someone will probably follow-up with this, I do ban people, and have actually pulled the trigger more than normal in the last couple of weeks. Here are the general rules for posting at RWN:

"Are There Any Rules About Posting Comments?: Yes, please don't flame excessively, use an exceptional amount of vulgar language, call anyone a "towelhead" or "raghead", continually post off topic material, spam, use racial slurs, libel anyone, troll, or make threats.

In short, don't be a jerk.

If that won't work for you, I'll delete your posts and ban your IP. If you are banned and genuinely don't know why, email me. If you know you were doing something mentioned above and you are banned, please don't try to get around the ban. Do everybody involved a favor and find somewhere else to post where they appreciate what you have to say."

Keep those rules in mind and have fun posting...

Question: How do you respond to a liberal that says stuff like, "If you support Chimpy McHalliburtonstein's war, then you should fight it. If not you are a hypocrite, zionist pig!!!!" I am exaggerating a bit, but you get my drift." -- bomberman

Answer: So basically, how do you respond to someone who says, "You're a chickenhawk if you support the war and don't sign up for the military?"

How about, "If you feel that way, then why aren't you supporting your position by going to Iraq to be a human shield?"

or

"Well, if that's what you believe, then shouldn't you never criticize the President since you've never been President yourself?"

or

"Does that mean that you should join the police department if you want cops to arrest crooks? Does it you mean that you think that only someone willing to join the fire department should expect firemen to put out burning buildings?"

The whole chickenhawk "argument" (and I use that word loosely in this case) is just a silly little tactic to shut down debate. Nothing more, nothing less. Since that's the case, it doesn't deserve to be treated as a well reasoned argument made by a serious person.

Tomorrow will be Q&A Friday #18 at RWN.

So, if there's a subject you've been wanting me to tackle or an issue you want to hear my opinion on, just ask your question in the comments section. Your question can be about politics, ideology, history, blogging, RWN, from a liberal, conservative, or libertarian perspective; heck, it can even be about movies, music, literature, or TV. Then, I'll select some of the more interesting questions and answer them.

So ask away!

After you finish reading Right Wing News today, make sure to check out my other blog, Conservative Grapevine.

Today at CG, there are multiple links to Rove vs. the wimpy liberal brouhaha, the Supreme Court vs. private property owners brouhaha and links to other...uh, brouhahas or something -- like:

-- The top 9 signs that you might be a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay =D
-- From the left: Things I hate about the progressive blogosphere
-- In support of the Flag Amendment

Check out Conservative Grapevine, bookmark it, and check it out every day. It's worth your time.

"But, lest we build up the enemy into 10-foot-tall supermen, it's important to realize how weak they actually are. Most of the conditions that existed in previous wars won by guerrillas, from Algeria in the 1950s to Afghanistan in the 1980s, aren't present in Iraq.

The rebels lack a unifying organization, ideology and leader. There is no Iraqi Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro or Mao Tse-tung. The top militant is Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian who has alienated most of the Iraqi population, even many Sunnis, with his indiscriminate attacks on civilians.

Support for the insurgency is confined to a minority within a minority — a small portion of Sunni Arabs, who make up less than 20% of the population. The only prominent non-Sunni rebel, Muqtada Sadr, has quietly joined the political process. The 80% of the population that is Shiite and Kurdish is implacably opposed to the rebellion, which is why most of the terror has been confined to four of 18 provinces.

Unlike in successful guerrilla wars, the rebels in Iraq have not been able to control large chunks of "liberated" territory. The best they could do was to hold Fallouja for six months last year. Nor have they been able to stage successful large-scale attacks like the Viet Cong did. A major offensive against Abu Ghraib prison on April 2 ended without a single U.S. soldier killed or a single Iraqi prisoner freed, while an estimated 60 insurgents were slain.

The biggest weakness of the insurgency is that it is morphing from a war of national liberation into a revolutionary struggle against an elected government. That's a crucial difference. Since 1776, wars of national liberation have usually succeeded because nationalism is such a strong force. Revolutions against despots, from Czar Nicholas II to the shah of Iran, often succeed too, because there is no way to redress grievances within the political process. Successful uprisings against elected governments are much rarer because leaders with political legitimacy can more easily rally the population and accommodate aggrieved elements." -- Max Boot

The terrorists in Iraq may be able to continue to blow up mosques and murder people going to market, but you don't achieve victory that way. As long as we stay in the game, continue to help the Iraqis build up their military forces, and keep supporting their efforts to achieve a fully functioning Democracy, victory is assured.

That may not be what everyone wants to hear, especially in our microwave culture, where we insist on instant results. But at this point, the only way the terrorists can win in Iraq is if America cuts and runs before the Iraqi government is ready to takeover.

The Iraqi people, our Coalition partners, and most importantly, our troops have made tremendous sacrifices under difficult circumstances to bring us this far and they will take us the rest of the way as long as we don't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory because of impatience or shameless political maneuvering by the Democrats.

It has been a long hard slog and we still have a ways to go, but if we stand behind our troops, the Coalition, and the Iraqi people, we will have turned an anti-American, terrorist supporting, dictatorship into the first Arab Democracy. Long term, that very well may be the event that drives a dagger through the heart of radical Islam and leads to the freedom of hundreds of millions of people in the Middle-East. That is something worth continuing to fight for...

Democrats are terribly upset with Karl Rove for telling the truth about how wimpy, weak, and generally useless they've been in the war on terror. Here are the remarks from Rove that are drawing the Dems' ire:

"Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," Rove said. "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."

...Rove said the Democratic Party made the mistake of calling for "moderation and restraint" after the terrorist attacks.

"Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said we will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said we must understand our enemies."

Rove also denounced Sen. Dick Durbin's comments comparing interrogation at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp to the methods of Nazis and other repressive regimes. He said the statements have been broadcast throughout the Middle East, putting American troops in greater danger. Durbin has since apologized for the remarks.

"No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals," Rove said.

All of this is obvious and true, but the Democrats have already gotten more upset with Karl Rove than they are with the terrorists who are trying to kill Americans -- which, come to think of it, is pretty much the normal state of things.

Moreover, complaining about Rove's comments is very disingenuous, very John Kerry-ish, very "I want credit for being against the war and for the war, too."

Isn't this the same Democratic Party that has complained incessantly about every aspect of the war on terror? Isn't this the same Democratic Party that has members who favor a draft simply because they think it would hurt the war effort? Isn't this the same Democratic Party that has called for Gitmo to be shut down? Isn't this the same Party that ran a Presidential Candidate in 2004 who called for a "more sensitive" war on terrorism and said he'd treat the war on terror "'primarily' as law-enforcement action?"

Just to drive the point home, here are a few quotes I've compiled, all of which were uttered less than a year after 9/11. Read these quotes and tell me what Karl Rove said about liberals isn't spot-on:

"My daughter, who goes to Stuyvesant High School only blocks from the World Trade Center, thinks we should fly an American flag out our window. Definitely not, I say: The flag stands for jingoism and vengeance and war." -- Katha Pollitt, The Nation, October 8

"Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes' destination of California--these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!" --Michael Moore, Michaelmoore.com, September 1

"The administration has bungled the challenge. ... The war effort is in deep trouble. The United States is not headed into a quagmire; it's already in one. The U.S. is not losing the first round against the Taliban; it has already lost it." -- Jacob Heilbrunn, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 4, 2001

"In a situation like this, of course you identify with everyone who's suffering. [But we must also think about] the terrorists who are creating such horrible future lives for themselves because of the negativity of this karma. It's all of our jobs to keep our minds as expansive as possible. If you can see [the terrorists] as a relative who's dangerously sick and we have to give them medicine, and the medicine is love and compassion. There's nothing better." -- Richard Gere

"I think it will take years before we can repair the damage done by that statement." -- Jimmy Carter on George Bush's use of the phrase "Axis of Evil"

"Melt their weapons, melt their hearts, melt their anger with love." -- Shirley MacLaine on her anti-terrorism policy

"In a war on Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden will either be left alive, while thousands of impoverished, frightened people are bombed into oblivion around him, or he will be killed in a bombing attack for which he seems quite prepared. But what would happen to his cool armor if he could be reminded of all the good, nonviolent things he has done? Further, what would happen to him if he could be brought to understand the preciousness of the lives he has destroyed? I firmly believe the only punishment that works is love." -- Alice Walker, The Village Voice

"America, America. What did you do--either intentionally or unintentionally--in the world order, in Central America, in Africa where bombs are still blasting? America, what did you do in the global warming conference when you did not embrace the smaller nations? America, what did you do two weeks ago when I stood at the world conference on racism, when you wouldn't show up? Oh, America, what did you do?" -- Former San Francisco Supervisor Amos Brown on September 17.

The Democrats are like Ken dolls who get upset because people won't pretend that they're GI Joes.

Here's my advice to the White House: whatever you do, don't apologize, because it will kill the debate. And aren't Democrats always talking about how we don't debate things enough in this country?

Well, let's have a nice, long debate about the Democratic Party's approach to terrorism. Let's hit it from every angle, let's study it, and let's see the Democrats try to defend their record. Let's have that debate as a nation, because as far as I'm concerned, it's long overdue.

*** Update #1 ***: Judging by the response from RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman, it doesn't sound like there's an apology forthcoming anytime soon:

“It’s outrageous that the same Democrats who stood by Dick Durbin’s libeling of our military are now expressing faux outrage over Karl Rove’s statement of historical fact. George Soros, Michael Moore, MoveOn and the hard left were wrong after 9/11, just as it was wrong for Democrat leaders to stand by and remain silent after Dick Durbin made his deplorable comments.”

More quotes compiled by the RNC:

From CNN

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private economic development.

So much for private property rights. Kennedy and Souter voted with the majority, proving once again just how essential it is that Bush pick somebody reliably - and permanently - conservative when there's an opening. (Related post)

As I pointed out back in February:

... the requirement to pay fair market value is a grossly inadequate safeguard on government power for two reasons in Kelo. First, it fails to take into account the subjective valuations placed on the property by people whose families have lived on the land, in at least one case, for a 100 years. In other words, if the Supreme Court rules for the city, the government will be able to seize land at a price considerably below the reservation price of the owners. Second, unlike the prototypical eminent domain case, in which the land is seized to build, say, a school or road, in this case the city is using eminent domain to seize property that will then be turned over to a private developer. If this new development increases the value of the property, all of that value will be captured by the new owner, rather than the forced sellers. As a result, the city will have made itself richer (through higher taxes), and the developer richer, while leaving the forced sellers poorer in both subjective and objective senses.

Justice O'Connor's dissent makes the point eloquently:

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

As I argued back in another post back in February, it's a moral outrage.

Others: Michelle Malkin is appalled, while Eugene Volokh is giving the public choice problem pointed out by O'Connor too little credit. As Will Collier puts it:

... the price even a willing seller would be able to get from his property just took a huge hit. All a developer has to do now is make a lowball offer and threaten to involve a bought-and-paid-for politician to take the property away if the owner doesn't acquiesce.

This content was used with the permission of ProfessorBainbridge.

As I perused the Democratic Underground, I came across another kooky Republicans ='s Nazis thread, which admittedly is rather unexceptional these days.

While it would be easy to just call a moonbat a moonbat here, I decided to do something a little different this time.

What I would like to do is reassure all you leftwing nuts out there -- and you know whom I'm talking about -- you with the tinfoil hat on, who thinks the election was rigged and Bush might be behind 9/11, you're whom I'm talking to here -- I'd like to let you know that most of your deepest, darkest fears about conservatives are groundless.

Take my word for it when I tell you this, because I know that of which I speak.

Thousands of conservatives read what I write each day, the RNC now answers my email, and I've interviewed countless numbers of big name conservatives. Moreover, I consume enormous amounts of content written by conservatives. Typically, I read 90+ blogs and 10-15 right-of-center political websites each day.

So while I may not be the spokesman for conservatism, I understand conservatism very well and when you read what I'm about to say about conservatives, believe it, because it's absolutely true.

All you loony libs ready? Here goes, here's the truth about conservatives:

-- We don't want to put you in camps.
-- We're also overwhelmingly opposed to the idea of a police state.
-- We detest Fascism & Nazism, just as we detest Communism.
-- We also don't believe there's any danger of America becoming a Fascist country.
-- We don't believe Bush is "another Hitler" or that there is any chance America will become "another Nazi Germany".
-- We're overwhelmingly against a draft.
-- We don't believe it's unpatriotic to disagree with the President.
-- As a matter of fact, many of us disagree with the President, particularly when it comes to illegal immigration and deficit spending.
-- Not only do we believe in following the Constitution, we believe we're much more serious about doing so than our political opponents.
-- We believe conservative economic policies are more beneficial to poor and middle-class Americans than liberal policies.
-- We're overwhelmingly opposed to the idea of creating an American empire.
-- We don't believe the Bush administration let 9/11 happen on purpose or made it happen on purpose.
-- We don't believe Iraq was a war for oil.
-- We don't think the war in Afghanistan was about oil or a pipeline.
-- We don't believe Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction.
-- We don't dislike people because of their skin color.
-- We don't believe the vote was rigged in 2000 or 2004.
-- We would rather lose an election than cheat to win.
-- We're totally opposed to theocracy and dominionism.

You conservatives out there, if you have a liberal friend or relative who's -- let's just say a few bricks short of a load -- send this to him and let him know that he can breathe easy. Sure, liberals and conservatives may not agree on a lot of things, but at least the lefties who're waiting for the FBI to kick in the door and drag them off to a death camp can rest a little easier now...

Here's an interesting juxtaposition: Dick Durbin's comments on Gitmo and the Rasmussen polling data on how the American people view what's going on at Gitmo.

First, let's look at Durbin's infamous comments -- which, by the way, were just the cherry on top of a Sundae of hysterical Democratic Party & MSM complaints about Gitmo:

"On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold. ..... On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor.

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."

Now let's look at the results of a Rasmussen Reports survey of likely voters (which -- if you're concerned about winning elections -- is far more significant than a poll of adults) about Gitmo:

" Rasmussen Reports survey found that 20% of Americans believe prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have been treated unfairly. Seven-out-of-ten adults believe the prisoners are being treated "better than they deserve" (36%) or "about right" (34%).

The survey also found that just 14% agree with people who say that prisoner treatment at Guantanamo Bay is similar to Nazi tactics."

So we have the left comparing Gitmo to the gulags and calling it to be shut down. Meanwhile, 70% of Americans don't have a problem with how prisoners are being treated there and 34% in essence say the terrorists are getting off easy (which is where I fall, by the way).

Given that, is it any wonder that Americans view Democrats as soft on defense? Is it a surprise that many Americans have grave doubts about whether today's Democratic Party is tough enough to lead the country in a time of war? Today's Democratic Party can't even deal with captured terrorists, so why should anyone believe they could handle the war on terrorism if they were in charge?

The truth is that the Democrats are too pacifistic, too tentative, and too obsessed with our image in the world to deal with the war on terror...and that's too bad. Republicans would still have a lot of disagreements with Democrats like John Kennedy and Harry Truman, but whatever you might think of them, they were at least hard nosed and tough enough to deal with threats to this country, unlike the leaders of today's Democratic Party.

Would this be a blockbuster or what? From Bill Kristol at the Weekly Standard:

"Warning: THIS IS SPECULATION. Obviously, I think it's somewhat well-informed speculation, or else I wouldn't be writing this. But it is speculation.

There will be a Supreme Court resignation within the next week. But it will be Justice O'Connor, not Chief Justice Rehnquist. There are several tea-leaf-like suggestions that O'Connor may be stepping down, including the fact that she has apparently arranged to spend much more time in Arizona beginning this fall. There are also recent intimations that Chief Justice Rehnquist may not resign. This would be consistent with Justice O'Connor having confided her plan to step down to the chief a while ago. Rehnquist probably believes that it wouldn't be good for the Court to have two resignations at once, so he would presumably stay on for as long as his health permits, and/or until after Justice O'Connor's replacement is confirmed."

Kristol then takes the scenario up to the next level:

"President Bush will appoint Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to replace O'Connor. Bush certainly wants to put Gonzales on the Supreme Court. Presidents usually find a way to do what they want to do."

If O'Connor were to resign, that would obviously be great news because it would give Bush the opportunity to appoint at least two conservative justices to the SCOTUS.

However, whether Bush likes him or not, it would be a huge mistake to nominate someone like Alberto Gonzales who's so moderate that a Gonzales for O'Connor swap would be considered by the base to be a wash.

Not only would a Gonzales appointment so soon after the "deal of 7" debacle unleash a flood of conservative anger at Bush unlike anything he has seen in his presidency, it could create some very sticky situations for Republican Senators running in 2006 because it's entirely possible a Gonzales nomination could be defeated. The Democrats would likely vote en masse against Gonzales and Republicans would likely face a huge lobbying effort by conservative groups opposed to a Gonzales nomination.

Just imagine another brouhaha that the base perceives themselves to be on the losing side of after being sold out by the Senate -- again -- and by the President himself. That could be the sort of moment for Bush that breaking the, "Read my lips, no new taxes" pledge was for his father -- a complete political disaster that has the potential to permanently damage Bush with the base -- and turn a 2-3 seat gain in the Senate in 2006 into a 2-3 seat loss. The base is already generally unhappy with the Republican Party over the deficits, illegal immigration, and judges as it is -- Gonzales could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Bush made a promise to appoint conservative judges to the SCOTUS both in his 2000 & 2004 campaigns and he better stick to it even though it means his buddy Alberto Gonzales won't get appointed. That applies, even if it turns out Kristol's hunch about O'Connor is completely off the mark.

Since AFI's Top 100 Movie Quotes is getting a lot of attention today, I just thought I'd point out that RWN has "been there, done that".

RWN's 100 Favorite Movie Quotes Of All Time

Here are some of my 12 faves from the list:

12) "Like maple syrup, Canada's evil oozes over the United States." -- Canadian Bacon

11) Sir Bedemere: "What makes you think she's a witch?" Peasant: "She turned me into a newt!" Sir Bedemere: "A newt?!" Peasant: "I got better"... Crowd: "BURN HER ANYWAY!" -- -- Monty Python and the Holy Grail

10) "Bluto's right, psychotic, but absolutely right. We gotta take these b*stards. Now, we could fight 'em with conventional weapons, that could take years, and cost millions of lives. No, in this case, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture, be done on somebody's part." -- Animal House

9) "Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. Well, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you! I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!" -- Monty Python and the Holy Grail

8) "Losers always whine about their best. Winners go home and f*ck the prom queen." -- The Rock

7) "If we're caught, we're gonna hang... But there's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip." -- Young Guns

6) "All right Clanton, you called down the thunder and now you've got it. You see that? It says United States Marshall. Take a good look at him Ike because that's how your gonna end up. The cowboys are finished you understand me? I see a red sash, I kill the man wearing it. So run you cur, run, tell all the other curs that law is coming, you tell I'm coming, and Hell's coming with me you hear? Hell's coming with me." -- Tombstone

5) "You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a d*mn what you think you are entitled to." -- A Few Good Men

4) "Now you see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb." -- Space Balls

3) "I have come here to chew bubble gum and kick *ss...and I'm all out of bubble gum." -- They Live

2) "Naked force has settled more issues in history than any other factor. The contrary opinion 'violence never solves anything' is wishful thinking at its worst. People who forget that always pay...They pay with their lives and their freedom." -- Starship Troopers

1) "I know what you're thinking, "Did he fire six shots, or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But, being that this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya punk?" -- Dirty Harry

Ok, before I get started, I just want to allay your fears, I'm not going to be doing a post a day bashing MSM darling John McCain -- well, until the 2008 nomination gets going, then I'm probably going to beat on John McCain the way I did Kerry last year.

That being said, I just had to comment on this laughable AP column by Ron Fournier, where he talks about how unstoppable the New York Times' favorite Republican is (snicker, snicker):

"If you want to be the next president, it's time to start running — unless your name is Hillary Rodham Clinton or John McCain. They can wait. And wait, as front-runners tend to do. "They're 800-pound gorillas," says Democratic consultant Jeff Link of Iowa. "They're well-known, well-liked and will be heavy favorites in their respective parties."

...Bush's brother, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, has said he won't run for president in 2008. Still, some Republicans, including a few close to the White House, say McCain-Bush is their dream ticket.

...Polls suggest that Clinton is the overwhelming favorite of Democrats, while a slim majority of all voters say they are likely to back her in the general election. A Clinton candidacy would galvanize conservatives who railed against her husband, former President Clinton.

McCain has the opposite problem. He is favored by a majority of Democrats and independents who would vote in a general election, but his support among Republicans is less than ideal.

If he seeks the presidency, McCain's challenge would be maintain his appeal to moderates while highlighting in the GOP nomination fight his support of Bush on Iraq and the war on terrorism."

Hey, it's another appearance by the McCain/Bush liberal media dream ticket that I mentioned yesterday! Have I ever pointed out how incredibly unlikely that pairing actually would be in real life, even setting aside the fact that George W. Bush and John McCain are thought not to like each other very much?

It would make no sense for Jeb Bush to run as the veep to a guy he could easily beat in the Republican primaries....and, yeah, I don't know if Jeb would win (Republicans would prefer someone other than another Bush in 2008), but he'd certainly clobber McCain. Come on, a fiscally conservative governor who can raise money, does well with Hispanics, can guarantee Florida, and would have all the Bush loyalists behind him vs. a 72 year-old Republican Senator who's more despised by the base than any other Republican in Washington? Give me a break! That would be like Hillary running as Joe Biden's #2 guy.

Secondly, as the 2004 Democratic primary proved, the rules of the game have changed. Dark horse candidates who could have never gotten their message out before can now get press from the new media and raise enormous amounts of cash via the net. It's well known that Howard Dean raised beaucoups of cash online, but did you know what happened to really launch his campaign? Winning the MoveOn Primary way back in July of 2003.

That just goes to show you how things have changed. Maybe there was a time when a Republican candidate could move to the right during the primaries, get a few endorsements, grab a few headlines, and snag the nomination without most voters giving a really hard look to anyone else, but those days are over.

Now every flaw and detail of the candidate will be available to voters via the new media and those primary moves to the right and left? Forget about it! Every speech, every quote is catalogued, and there are going to be radio talk show hosts, bloggers, mags to remind the voters of every detail of a candidate's voting record and public appearances. No matter what sort of "loyal Republican" mask McCain puts on, he will be continuously pounded from every angle by the new media until he drops out of the race.

Furthermore, the voters in a Republican primary -- the sort of people who could not care less what the editorial board of the WAPO or LA Times thinks about anything -- you know what they'll be doing as they decide who to vote for?

They'll sit down and read a blog bad mouthing McCain, while they listen to a conservative talk show slamming him, until they get up and go to the mailbox to get their new copy of National Review that'll be talking about what a disaster he'd be as a President. You think McCain's candidacy can survive that kind of hostility from the sort of people who should be his biggest supporters? No way!

I don't care how much money McCain raises, what talent he brings on board, how many endorsements he gets, if Jeb is his veep: it just doesn't matter. McCain has no chance whatsoever to win the Republican nomination because he has permanently burned his bridges with conservatives in the party, particularly conservatives in the new media, and there's nothing he can do to fix it at this point.

So, I don't know who the nominee will be, but John McCain isn't going to be the one grabbing the brass ring.

11-year-old Brennan Hawkins, missing for four days in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, has been found alive by Michael Jackson. Rescuers say that the King of Pop was acquitted just in time to fly to Utah and save the boy.

"It is like a miracle," said rescue worker Aaron Anderson, "Michael arrived at the campsite and asked for a piece of clothing that the boy had worn. After smelling the Boy Scout's "Revenge of the Sith" underwear for several minutes, he got down on all fours and began tracking Brennan's footsteps, grunting and snuffling."

Broken Newz has learned that the odd appearance of Jackson's nose is not due to repeated plastic surgery. Jackson has in fact spent millions on the development of a "bionic nose" which gives him superhuman powers of smell. "I hoped that I would be able to augment other parts of my body for unnaturally advanced performance," said Jackson, "my eyes, hearing, touch, but even my wealth has limits. I plan to boost my skin sensitivity, to the point where I can even feel the subtle, soft differences of skin on a child's body. That's just an example; you people always think it's sexual. It's not sexual."

This satire was used with the permission of Broken Newz.

"...Many studies have found that women make about 75 cents for every dollar a man earns. Activists say the pay difference is all about sexism.

...But how could this be possible? Suppose you're an employer doing the hiring. If a woman does equal work for 25 percent less money, businesses would get rich just by hiring women. Why would any employer ever hire a man?

...In other words, men so love their fellow men that they are willing to pay a premium of, say, $10,000 on what would otherwise be a $30,000-a-year job, just for the sheer pleasure of employing a man. Nonsense. It's market competition that sets wages.

Men do care about money -- and that, not wage discrimination, is why men tend to make more of it.

"Women themselves say they're far more likely to care about flexibility," says author Warren Farrell. "Men say, I'm far more likely to care about money." -- John Stossel

Make sure to check out the latest links at my other blog, Conservative Grapevine.

Here are just some of the headlines at CG today:

-- Dick Durbin finds a new torture victim: Otis the Drunk from Mayberry
-- Retro-Blogging: The famous faux lesbian pics featuring Wonkette & the Washingtonienne
-- The early 2006 Senate Scorecard
-- Hugh (Hewitt) interviews a Gitmo vet who was there for a year

Make sure to check out Conservative Grapevine, bookmark the blog, and then head on over after you read RWN every day.

You see that bumper sticker? It represents my feelings. I do "heart" Gitmo. You know why? Because we do lock up terrorists there...and not just any terrorists, terrorists who are determined to see Americans die.

Am I concerned about their rights? About as concerned as I would have been about the rights of Nazis captured during WW2.

While that means I would not support torturing them -- and as far as I am concerned, nothing that has been reported to have occurred at Gitmo rises to the level of torture -- it also means those terrorists confined at Gitmo have few rights. In my opinion, they have no right to a lawyer, no right to a trial, they have no right to be told when they're going to be released, and it is right and proper for them to be interrogated regularly and harshly for information.

Am I concerned that "the world" is unhappy with Gitmo? No. In fact, I'm more concerned that we're being too soft at Gitmo and not getting information we need. I'm also worried that all these liberal politicians like Dick Durbin, who seem more concerned about terrorists at Gitmo than American soldiers, are convincing the enemy that we're "paper tigers" who don't have the guts or heart for a long fight.

So, include me among the strong supporters of Gitmo.

Gitmo serves a vital function in the war on terror and it has been well run and managed despite the mountains some people have tried to make out of molehills there. Moreover, the calls to close Gitmo send exactly the wrong signal to our enemies.

Keeping Gitmo open is the right thing to do and I'd suggest that anyone who suggests we close that prison isn't serious about winning the war on terrorism and preventing another 9/11.

Hat tip to Move America Forward for the bumper sticker.

Mainly because of name recognition, John McCain, like Joe Lieberman in 2000, tends to do pretty well when polls are taken on who's going to be the Republican nominee in 2008. Furthermore, since McCain is the favorite Republican of the mainstream, they love to come up with little scenarios that allow him to become the nominee. The latest one is that McCain will team up with Jeb as his veep, W. will give them his blessing, and it'll be smooth sailing from that point on .

Now, while I'll be the first person to admit that it's wide open in 2008 and that it's impossible to know who the nominee is going to be at this point, I can tell you definitively that it ain't gonna be "Maverick" John McCain.

Let me just give you 3 pieces of evidence to support my conclusion.

#1) Back in January, I polled the right side of the blogosphere on who their most and least desired nominee would be in 2008.

The least desired nominee? John McCain tied for first with Newt Gingrich. But, at least McCain did really well in the most desired nominee slot, right? Wrong, he finished 8th, behind dark horse candidates like Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, & Tom Tancredo. Considering that McCain is a well known national figure with high name recognition, that's an abysmal showing.

#2) But, you may be thinking, "Gosh, that was probably a fluke. McCain isn't THAT unpopular, is he?" Oh yeah, he is. In the "Who Is Screwing Up America" poll that went live today, McCain tied with Robert Byrd for 13th place and he was sandwiched in between Noam Chomsky in 15th place and Jessie Jackson in 11th. When the sort of people who will not just be voting in the Republican primaries, but influencing others who vote, dislike you that much, how can you possibly stand a chance?

#3) Last but not least, this story out of Arizona gives you an idea of just how angry John McCain makes the conservative base:

"On Saturday, the Arizona Republican Assembly (ARA) voted unanimously during its annual state convention to censure Arizona’s senior senator.

McCain has seriously alienated his conservative base in the 21 st century. However, he has greatly enamored himself with liberals and he easily won re-election in November with his new liberal support base. The conservatives who make up the ARA membership have had enough of what they consider a betrayal by McCain and they took advantage of their annual resolution ritual to take action against the liberal metamorphosis of the presidential hopeful.

The censure measure will be sent to Matt Salmon, chairman of the Arizona GOP -- with hopes of a state party censure as well -- to all Republican county and legislative district chairmen and will be issued as a press release to the media. No one spoke in support of McCain during discussion of the resolution.

...Though a motion for censure Saturday drew unanimous approval, the ARA’s senior member, Louis Stradling, of Mesa, offered up an amendment that would have added stronger language to the document. Stradling suggested an amendment to the resolution that would have charged McCain with “malfeasance.” That move failed when Barton said he agrees with the spirit of Stradling’s suggestion, but he felt the word “malfeasance” might have added a legal sticking point that ARA would be better off avoiding. After the proposed amendment failed, ARA delegates enthusiastically and without dissent approved the resolution to censure McCain."

And John McCain is going to be the nominee in 2008? Not. A. Chance. In. Hell.

McCain may have bought the love of the New York Times, The WAPO, and the rest of the MSM by flipping off conservatives and it has served him well in Arizona. But come 2008, McCain is going to have to come to those same conservatives with his hat in his hand asking for their vote and every time he stuck it to the base is going to get thrown right back in his face.

Yes, the New York Times' favorite Republican has bitten the hands that fed him far too many times and in 2008, if McCain runs, conservatives will bite him back at the ballot box.

Via Cut On The Bias & Lainey's Photo Website

Sen. Dick Durbin, who recently compared U.S. personnel at the Guantánamo Bay terrorist-detention facility to Nazis, took the Senate floor today to slam U.S. troops in Iraq for their "progressive poisoning" of the imprisoned Saddam Hussein with snack foods.

The Illinois Democrat's criticism follows published reports that the former Iraqi president sometimes eats an entire family-sized bag of Doritos in 10 minutes.

While Doritos contain no trans-fats, eating such a large quantity at a single sitting subjects Mr. Hussein to high-levels of salt and puts him at risk of acute salivary-depletion syndrome, Mr. Durbin said.

"In our name, these junk-food jailers have loaded up Saddam with non-nutritive calories, thereby tarnishing our nation's reputation in the Muslim world," the Senator said. "President Hussein is locked up in a horrifying high-sodium slammer. No wonder the insurgents attack our troops."

This satire was used with the permission of Scrappleface.

Here's my entry in the Who Is Screwing Up America survey with short but sweet explanations for whom I selected:

The six non-conservative Supremes have probably done as much damage as the rest of the list put together:

Stephen Breyer
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
John Paul Stevens
Sandra Day O'Connor
Anthony Kennedy
David Souter

The two former POTUS who've run around the world undercutting American foreign policy:

Bill Clinton
Jimmy Carter

The race baiters who make a living helping to drum up racial strife:

Julian Bond
Louis Farrakhan

The ultra-left wingers who've dragged the Democratic Party leftward and helped to make them completely useless in the war on terror:

Wes Boyd (MoveOn)
Robert Byrd
Howard Dean
Al Gore
Michael Moore

The left's big money man:

George Soros

The man who makes a living teaching America college kids to hate their own country:

Noam Chomsky

Leader of the ACLU, the group on the point in the left's attack on Christianity

Anthony Romero

The man responsible for misinforming more Americans about economics than anyone else:

Paul Krugman

The man most responsible for undercutting the Republican Party from within

John McCain

Right Wing News emailed more than 200 right-of-center bloggers and asked them to send us a list of whom they believed was "screwing up America." Representatives from the following 47 blogs responded...

Absinthe & Cookies, The Anchoress, Annika's Journal, AtlanticBlog, Babalu Blog, Baldilocks, Being American in T.O., Betsy's Page, Blogs For Bush, Boi From Troy, Blackfive, BlameBush!, Brainster's Blog, Capitalist Lion, Cheese and Crackers, Conservative Grapevine, dcthornton.blog, Dodgeblogium, Ed Driscoll, Drumwaster's Rants, Kim Du Toit, Evil Pundit Of Doom!, Fraters Libertas, GayPatriot, Gocinatlanta, The Greatest Jeneration, Hog Haven, IMAO, A Little More To the Right, Multiple Mentality, Peaktalk, The Pink Flamingo Bar & Grill, Red-State, Relapsed Catholic, Right Thinking Girl, Right Thinking From The Left Coast, Sine Qua Non, Slant Point, Slobokan's Site Of Schtuff, Slowplay, Stark Truth, The Jawa Report, This Blog Is Full Of Crap, Viking Pundit, Villainous Company, Vox Popoli, YoungPundit

All bloggers were asked to select an unranked list of 1-20 people who are "screwing up" America and making this country a worse place to live.

Without further ado, the "people who are screwing up America" according to right-of-center bloggers are as follows (with the number of votes received following each choice in parentheses):

23) Sandra Day O'Connor (6)
23) Ruth Bader Ginsburg (6)
23) Maxine Waters (6)
21) Charles Rangel (7)
21) Al Gore (7)
17) David Souter (8)
17) Al Sharpton (8)
17) Markos Moulitsas Zuniga (8)
17) Bill Clinton (8)
16) Paul Krugman (9)
15) Noam Chomsky (10)
13) John McCain (11)
13) Robert Byrd (11)
11) Jessie Jackson (12)
11) Jimmy Carter (12)
10) Nancy Pelosi (13)
8) John Kerry (14)
8) Barbara Boxer (14)
7) Dick Durbin (17)
6) Hillary Clinton (19)
4) George Soros (23)
4) Harry Reid (23)
3) Ted Kennedy (24)
1) Michael Moore (26)
1) Howard Dean (26)

This survey was inspired by a new book coming out from Bernard Goldberg called "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America".

Former President Bill Clinton today said that if the scandal-plagued terrorist detention facility at Guantánamo Bay isn't "cleaned up or closed down" then insurgents in Iraq may resort to killing Iraqis, and could even begin attacking U.S. troops.

"If the United States gets a reputation in the Muslim world of mistreating terrorist prisoners," said Mr. Clinton, "It could unleash what sociologists call 'the righteous brutality of the oppressed' among the normally-peaceful followers of Islam."

The former president said the backlash could include, "bombings, kidnappings and even beheadings. That's the kind of future we may face unless we atone for the sins of Gitmo."

This satire was used with the permission of Scrappleface.

I blame Thomas Friedman for this transparent idiocy:

Why all the fuss over a seemingly technical point of law? This debate is driven by outcomes. In each of the recent cases in which invoking foreign law has sparked controversy, the decisions have been progressive or liberal. But a lot of international law is not so progressive. On issues ranging from freedom of speech to abortion, much of the world is far to the right of U.S. law. It will be interesting to see whether conservatives get so upset when cases come along in which international doctrines would help their side.

But at a loftier plane, this is an important debate about the court's role. Conservatives who believe in a limited role for judges say the Supreme Court should stick to its knitting, namely interpreting the U.S. Constitution as written, and should ignore current fads here or abroad. But the counter-argument is strong. If globalization has flattened the world in terms of the economy and culture, isn't it time that our legal system also look beyond our borders? Are we so arrogant that we think we have nothing to learn from judges and lawmakers around the world who have faced the same issues we face?

Indeed. Why all this fuss over a technical point of law? Why get bogged down in mere technicalities like what the law actually says, not what we would like it to say based on the invaluable input of, say... France? Or the fact that "the Court's role" is spelled out in the Constitution, which that same court would now like the freedom to change according to its whims? Checks and balances, anyone? What if the Court suddenly decides, based on foreign law, that it should be superior to the other two branches of government? Ah, cheries...surely we are not so arrogant that we cannot learn from other nations?

The Constitution is the foundation of law for this nation and provides for its own amendment, not by judicial fiat but by the democratic process.

A house built on a constantly-shifting foundation cannot stand. If we are to shift that foundation let it be a deliberate and well-grounded change, supported by our own jurisprudence or resting on the consent of the governed (i.e., those governed here, not in Eritrea, Botswanna, or the pampas of South America).

These are hardly mere 'technicalities'.

This content was used with the permission of Villainous Company.

Now any conservative can tell you that Robert Byrd, the man the left likes to call the "conscience of the Senate," is a former klansman. That's old -- but entertaining news -- that's always fun to toss in the left's face.

I mean, here is this old bigot, this old klansman -- and all these hyper-sensitive, ultra-politically correct liberals -- who run around claiming everything Republicans do is evidence of some hidden racist tendency -- follow this guy around like they're lovestruck teenagers.

Remember when Republicans quite properly stripped Trent Lott of his leadership position in the Senate for sounding a little too supportive of Strom Thurmond's racist past? Well, Robert Byrd is the living embodiment of what people thought Trent Lott was praising -- yet, there are blogads running on liberal blogs referring to Robert Byrd as "An American Hero." It's just mind-boggling, off-the-charts hypocrisy.

Again, this is all fun stuff, but it's also old news.

However, the WAPO has done an in depth article on Byrd's Klan ties that's chock full of new and also long forgotten details. In fact, the WAPO piece was so good, I thought it was worth quoting some of the excerpts and commenting on them. Read along -- it'll be a blast!

In the early 1940s, a politically ambitious butcher from West Virginia named Bob Byrd recruited 150 of his friends and associates to form a chapter of the Ku Klux Klan. After Byrd had collected the $10 joining fee and $3 charge for a robe and hood from every applicant, the "Grand Dragon" for the mid-Atlantic states came down to tiny Crab Orchard, W.Va., to officially organize the chapter.

Yes, folks, Robert Byrd wasn't just a member of the KKK, he founded the Klan chapter in his area and talked everybody else into joining! That explains a lot, doesn't it? I mean, if we have a guy charismatic enough to talk people into joining the Klan, then how much harder could it be to talk a bunch of liberals into voting for him?

Oh, but it gets better, folks. Byrd has a new book out, "Robert C. Byrd: Child of the Appalachian Coalfields," and in it he "whitewashes" what the KKK was all about:

The 770-page book is the latest in a long series of attempts by the 87-year-old Democratic patriarch to try to explain an event early in his life that threatens to define him nearly as much as his achievements in the Senate. In it, Byrd says he viewed the Klan as a useful platform from which to launch his political career. He described it essentially as a fraternal group of elites -- doctors, lawyers, clergy, judges and other "upstanding people" who at no time engaged in or preached violence against blacks, Jews or Catholics, who historically were targets of the Klan.

Why, the Klan hated blacks, Jews, and Catholics? Nonsense. Why, that's just propaganda! Actually the Klan was just a nice group of "upstanding people," the sort of fine folks anybody would want to hang out with. Heck, Byrd even said they were a "useful platform from which to launch his political career" -- and it turns out that they were!

Here's more from the WAPO on Robert Byrd's long, successful relationship with the KKK:

"Byrd's book offers a truncated description of his days with the Klan that does not completely square with contemporaneous newspaper accounts and letters that show he was involved with the Klan throughout much of the 1940s, and not merely for two or three years.

According to his book, Byrd wrote to Samuel Green, an Atlanta doctor and "Imperial Wizard" of the Ku Klux Klan, in late 1941 or early 1942, expressing interest in joining. Some time later, he received the letter from Baskin, the "Grand Dragon" of mid-Atlantic states, saying he would come to Byrd's home in Crab Orchard whenever Byrd had rounded up 150 recruits for the Klan.

When Baskin finally arrived, the group gathered at the home of C.M. "Clyde" Goodwin, a former local law enforcement official. When it came time to choose the "Exalted Cyclops," the top officer in the local Klan unit, Byrd won unanimously."

Well, well, well. "(M)uch of the 1940s" -- so he was with the KKK for almost a decade -- ooh, and he was an "Exalted Cyclops" -- very impressive. Maybe Byrd should put that on his blogads: "Vote for an American Hero and an Exalted Cyclops in the KKK" -- wait, is that overkill? Is it too long? Well in any case, I'm sure it wouldn't hurt his fund raising. Heck, Byrd could still walk around in his white KKK dress and hood and as long as he could deliver a seat in West Virginia, the Democrats would still love the guy just as much as they did in the fifties:

"....Byrd won the primary (for the U.S. House in 1952), but during the general election campaign, Byrd's GOP opponent uncovered a letter Byrd had handwritten to Green, the KKK Imperial Wizard, recommending a friend as a Kleagle and urging promotion of the Klan throughout the country. The letter was dated 1946 -- long after the time Byrd claimed he had lost interest in the Klan. "The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia," Byrd wrote, according to newspaper accounts of that period. Byrd makes no mention of the letter in his new book.

Stunned Democratic state party officials, including then-Gov. Okey L. Patteson, urged him to drop out of the race. Byrd survived the ensuing political firestorm, won the general election and went on to serve six years in the House before winning his Senate seat in 1958. During his Senate campaign, he told a newspaper reporter that he personally felt the Klan had been incorrectly blamed for many acts committed by others.

Apparently, the Klan really does get "incorrectly blamed for many acts committed by others." I mean, here we are in 2005 thinking they're a bunch of backwards, racist scumbags and we have an admired Democratic Senator explaining in his new book that they were a gentleman's club that would never advocate violence against minorities. Who knew? How lucky we all are to have "the conscience of the Senate" to set the record straight and take up for the poor, misunderstood folks in the Klan!

Moving on, here's a great juxtaposition from the article:

Four years later, Byrd's Klan past became an issue again when he joined with other southern Democrats to oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Byrd filibustered the bill for more than 14 hours as he argued that it abrogated principles of federalism....

....When Sen. Mike Mansfield (D-Mont.) retired as majority leader in 1976, Byrd easily captured the post.

Yes, folks, a mere 12 years after Robert Byrd was filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he was the Democratic majority leader in the Senate.

You know, there are a lot of things that conservatives and liberals don't see eye to eye on and perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree on a lot of them.

But, can't we all agree that a former "Grand Cyclops" of the Ku Klux Klan who filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shouldn't be one of the most prominent representatives of the Democratic Party in the Senate of the United States in these days and times? You would have to hope so, but I think we all know better than that...

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin for the story.

More Patton photos here.

"Last Tuesday, Senator Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, quoted a report of U.S. "atrocities" at Guantanamo and then added:

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings."

Er, well, your average low-wattage senator might. But I wouldn't. The "atrocities" he enumerated -- "Not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room" -- are not characteristic of the Nazis, the Soviets or Pol Pot, and, at the end, the body count in Gitmo was a lot lower. That's to say, it was zero, which would have been counted a poor day's work in Auschwitz or Siberia or the killing fields of Cambodia.

But give Durbin credit. Every third-rate hack on every European newspaper can do the Americans-are-Nazis schtick. Amnesty International has already declared Guantanamo the "gulag of our times." But I do believe the senator is the first to compare the U.S. armed forces with the blood-drenched thugs of Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge. Way to go, senator! If you had a dime for every crackpot Web site that takes up your thoughtful historical comparison, you'd be able to retire to the Caribbean and spend the rest of your days torturing yourself with hot weather and loud music, as well as inappropriately provocative women and insufficient choice of hors d'oeuvres and all the other shameful atrocities committed at Guantanamo.

Just for the record, some 15 million to 30 million Soviets died in the gulag; some 6 million Jews died in the Nazi camps; some 2 million Cambodians -- one third of the population -- died in the killing fields. Nobody's died in Gitmo, not even from having Christina Aguilera played to them excessively loudly. The comparison is deranged, and deeply insulting not just to the U.S. military but to the millions of relatives of those dead Russians, Jews and Cambodians, who, unlike Durbin, know what real atrocities are. Had Durbin said, "Why, these atrocities are so terrible you would almost believe it was an account of the activities of my distinguished colleague Robert C. Byrd's fellow Klansmen," that would have been a little closer to the ballpark but still way out." -- Mark Steyn

Now this is a Che Guevara shirt that someone who isn't a smelly hippy, an empty headed Paris Hilton clone, or a Commie could actually wear with pride:

I only wish I'd come up with it first. But unfortunately, the fine folks at Che-Mart came up with it first.

Ah well...anyway, if you want to know why all good hearted people detest Che, click here for a short and sweet post on the topic from the RWN archives.

Hat tip to Alarming News for finding the shirt.

I'd really appreciate it if you could check out just a few of my advertisers. Come on, it's not as if I'm asking you for money, right? How long would it take to check out -- let's say 3 advertisers -- not very long and it makes a big difference....and I'm not just saying that either. These advertisers compare clicks to see where they get the biggest bang for the buck and if RWN delivers, they come back. If we don't, they spend their money elsewhere.

So by clicking on a few ads, you help me out. So please, how about clicking on a few ads? Heck, if you don't want to click on 3 ads, pick just 1 that looks interesting and click on it. It's the right thing to do...

Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran
Intelligent Design The Future
Get A Free iPod!
JackLewis
Matt Furey Combat Conditioning
Place A Bet On Iraq
Realm Dekor
Rightalk Radio
The Truth About Hillary
Vacations To Go
VitaminUSA
Young Nationalist

---

There is one banner ad available. If you want it, you better get it while it lasts because these ads generally go pretty fast. Here are the deails.

You can purchase a 468x60 banner ad on RWN for $60 a month. The banners appear on every page of RWN. If you're interested, send $60 to my Paypal account (which is also located in the support section -- please mention what the money is for in the comments section) and email me your 20kb or smaller banner ad at johnhawkins-at-rightwingnews.com. I will sell a maximum of 4 of these ads per month.

---

Also, make sure to check out Conservative Grapevine, my other blog. If you're not reading CG right after you're reading RWN, you're missing out on some of the best posts in the blogosphere.