Absinthe & Cookies

Althouse

The Anchoress

Atlas Shrugs

Betsy's Page

Mary Katharine Ham's Soapbox

Michelle Malkin

Not A Desperate Housewife

NYgirl

Right Thinking Girl

She Who Will Be Obeyed

Sister Toldjah

Sisu

Transcended

Trying To Grok

Question: "(H)ow do you explain the fact that right-wingers consistently side with Israel and left-wingers with the Palestinians?

Thanks,

Josh" -- oneisnotprime

Answer: In all fairness to the left, they tend to be split on Israel. However, I'd say that the reason that they're split is because even though Jews are a small percentage of the American population, roughly 70% of them vote liberal and they contribute a disproportionate amount of money to the Democratic Party. Because of that, Israel is going to have at least a certain amount of support in the Democratic Party.

On the other hand, in my opinion, the reason why so many leftists are hostile to Israel is largely because the Palestinians claim they're oppressed & plus they're weaker & poorer than Israelis. That makes them victims in the eyes of liberals. Furthermore, the fact that Israel is a staunch ally of America causes liberals to view them as suspect as well. Add to all that the "soft bigotry of low expectations" that causes liberals to hold Israel to the highest standards of civilized behavior while excusing anything the Palestinians do, and you can see why Israel is so loathed by many people on the left.

On the right, there are some evangelical Christians who support Israel for religious reasons, but most conservatives look at Israel as the "good guys" in the conflict. We see them as a small, Western, democratic ally fighting against terrorism and neighboring nations that are irrationally hostile to them because they're Jews.

Furthermore, the Palestinians are responsible for their own problems. They, among others, tried to wipe the Jews out in 1967, they lost, and that's how the Israelis came to hold that territory. Today, the Palestinians have a non-functional government, a non-functional death cult of a society, and they idiolize terrorists. How can you blame the Israelis for not being able to get along with the Palestinians when no civilized Western country could get along with them? The Palestinians in the disputed territories are some of the most quarrelsome, virulently anti-semitic, uncivilized people on the planet and because of that Israel certainly should not be blamed for doing what they think is necessary to defend themselves.

How about doing me a favor by clicking on just a few of my advertisers? Even if you click on 2 or 3 of them, it'll help out. Seriously. The more eyeballs they have on their ads, the more they're getting for their money, and the more likely they are to advertise with RWN again. So, could you just take a look at 2-3 of them? I'd certainly appreciate it.

Conservative Grapevine: Lot Of Good Stuff On CG Today. Make Sure To Check It Out
Freedom Stone T-Shirts
JackLewis
Matt Furey Combat Conditioning
Place A Bet On Iraq
Politically Incorrect Gazette
Rightalk Conservative Radio
Right Wing Stuff
Vacations To Go
VitaminUSA

PS: There is now a banner ad spot open. Here are the details if you'd like to purchase it:

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.

Question: "John:

The president's job approval rating is dropping into the low 40's, not good. If he falls much farther than this, he’s going to have big problems trying to get things done.

3 things I think are hurting the President. Iraq, the border and Increasing fuel prices.

Now, the average Joe probably doesn’t pay much attention to the first two, but he does pay attention to the last one mentioned here.

Everybody is going to take notice (and probably be angry too) when they are paying more than 3 bucks a gallon to fill up the family SUV.

I think the President’s done a good job so far, but I’m wondering how he’s going to get himself out of the rut he appears to be in. How is he going to get OPEC under control? Is he going to deal with the border? How does he get the message across to the American people to fight the good fight in Iraq? If you were in Karl Rove’s position, what would you advise the President to do?" -- Scorched_Earth

Answer: See, this is a great question because what political blogger could resist the opportunity to play Karl Rove for a day?

By the way, I agree with you that Iraq, the border, and fuel prices are the three biggest thorns in Bush's side. Here -- in brief -- is how I'd tell Bush to handle them:

1) Fuel Prices: There's no quick fix for this problem. Tapping the strategic reserve wouldn't help much and from everything I've seen, OPEC isn't deliberately driving up the prices.

Instead, this appears to be a problem that's going to be around for a little while. So, what Bush should do is put together a proposal designed specifically to meet this country's gas needs.

It should include drilling of ANWR, even more tax incentives to build new refineries, getting rid of all the specialized gasoline blends, and maybe some sort of increase of CAFE standards (which is popular, although personally, I'm not a fan).

Then Bush needs to explain that this isn't an instant fix, it'll take awhile for these changes to make a difference. He can also talk up the recently passed energy bill which addresses some of these same concerns. Maybe this isn't the instant solution people want, but at least the American public will see that Bush is trying to deal seriously with an issue that they care about.

2) Bush hasn't been serious about illegal immigration or border enforcement and it is hurting him. Now, of course, he can't reverse course 180% without looking like a hypocrite, so what he should do is introduce two bills.

The first bill would beef up border security immensely, increase penalties for employers that hire illegals, prevent illegals caught in the US from ever becoming citizens, etc., etc -- Ya know, the sort of thing that would make Tom Tancredo and Michelle Malkin swoon.

The second bill would be the lame stuff all the people who are serious about illegal immigration don't like: amnesty, worker programs, allowing illegals still in the US to pay a fine and stay here.

Then Bush could announce that he's going to push bill #1 FIRST and then after it passes, he'll go back to Bill #2. That would enable Bush to talk tough about illegal immigration which would be wildly popular, while still telling Mexico and the people who are soft on illegal immigration that he's going to address their concerns later.

After Bill #1 passes, Bush would gain credibility with the people who want to be tough on illegal immigration. So then, pushing Bill #2 wouldn't hurt him very much. Of course it probably wouldn't pass either, but the people who were soft on immigration would still be able to see that Bush is on their side, he just wasn't able to overcome popular sentiment.

3) When it comes to the war, I don't think Bush needs to change course, I just think he needs to show the American people some fire. Early on, in his, "Bring 'em on," and, "wanted dead or alive," days, Bush seemed to be firm, in charge.

But, the Bush administration has always been terrible at using the bully pulpit and other than when he's campaigning, W's a bit too mild and reserved.

I mean, come on, you've got liberals running around screaming that we've lost the war, that it's for nothing, that Bush is incompetent, he's a liar, that he should be impeached -- and from Bush, we get, "Well, no, we're going to hang in there." The man has the tenacity of a bulldog, but the calm and measured way he speaks doesn't always reflect his Churchillian attitude.

So how about we get a little less Jimmy Stewart and get a little more John Wayne? Make it absolutely clear that we're not pulling out until the job is done. Lay a couple of salvos down on the anti-war crowd. For example, how about, "Some people insist we unconditionally surrender to the terrorists by cutting and running from Iraq. I say they are seriously lacking in judgment." Put the anti-war pols on the defensive for a while instead of letting them have an unlimited number of free shots at the President

Also, put the war in context: explain it in terms of the sacrifices we made to win in Japan, Germany, and Korea. As Newt Gingrich suggested, let Bush talk to the American people about, "Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat." Make it clear that this is tough duty, but we're Americans, we can handle it. Give the American people some markers of success to look forward to: the constitutional referendum in October, the election in December -- and make it very clear that we look forward to having our troops home, but we will not allow politicians here in the states to throw away the sacrifice made by our troops in Iraq. Let them know that we want to have the Iraqis policing their own democratic country, so we can bring our troops home victorious.

If Bush just showed a little more fire and explained things just a little better, I think that in and of itself would be enough to significantly buck up people's confidence about how the war is being handled.

Question: "With a popular leftwing pundit like Kos openly attacking the DLC for being "too conservative", do you foresee a schism within the Democratic ranks in the immediate future?" -- Good_Ol_Boy

Answer: Despite what a lot of people seem to think, the Democrats are actually much more split than Republicans.

As the party has relentlessly veered to the left over the last 40 years or so, a huge rift has opened up between the old school Harry Truman, John Kennedy, DLC style Democrats and the radical left wingers like Kos, Michael Moore, & the Move-On crowd.

The Democrats who are a bit more middle-of-the road probably outnumber the ultra-lefties, but they can't match them in visibility, fund raising, or passion. So, the ultra-lefties tend to have the lion's share of power in the party. This is unfortunate for the Democratic Party because the DLC crowd is actually much more politically savvy and closer to the mainstream than the Kossacks.

Both sides would like to gain supremacy because they believe it would bring success for the Party. The DLC people believe -- correctly, I might add -- that a more moderate image would help them win elections. Team Kos, on the other hand, thinks they just need to be more openly loud & liberal to pave the way to victory.

The names may change, but essentially these two groups have been slugging it out for decades as the Democratic Party has spiraled downward. Expect that to continue at least through 2008. If the Democrats lose their third Presidential election in a row, then maybe that'll be enough to wake them up to the problems the loopiest of their liberal brethren are causing...or maybe not. It should already be pretty obvious to anyone who follows politics at this point that a liberal agenda is a big loser in most of the country...

Question: "Are there any Dems that you would support for the Presidency over some of the "less desirable" Republican candidates? I know you don't have a lot of faith in a Rice candidacy (for example), but are there any Dems that, if given the nod, you would support instead of her (or another choice that is not very representative of your views)?"

This one should be addressed." mr2trucker

"I'll second that, (or am I third?)." -- dhermesc

Answer: It doesn't matter if it's Zell Miller (D) vs. John McCain (R); you don't ever vote for the Democrat over a Republican for the Presidency.

Let me explain why.

As a politician, your political base is vitally important. They're the ones on "your side," who give you money, who volunteer for your campaign, and who either vote for you or not at all. Pleasing this group of people is essential to your success. So even though you want to pull people in the middle to you, you don't want to alienate your base when you do it.

On some issues, politicians are just not allowed to leave the reservation at all. Any deviation from a certain set pattern will be viewed as a betrayal. On other issues that the base doesn't care about as much, politicians can go against the grain of the party, but they're going to feel enormous pressure to appease their base in other areas to make up for it.

So in a sense, a candidate is not a free agent who can set out on any course he chooses. Instead, he's always a captive to the interests of his party's base.

Putting this in real world terms, if you have a pro-life Democrat in the White House, he's still not going to appoint a judge to the SCOTUS who'll overturn Roe v. Wade. He just can't do that because his base would turn on him if he knowingly put a pro-life judge on the Supreme Court.

On other issues, like let's say welfare, a Democratic Candidate may very well feel that he has the latitude to take a position that much of the Party disagrees with. However, on the other hand, he is going to feel enormous pressure to move back to the left on other issues to keep the base happy.

(*** Incidentally, this is the "art of politics" -- finding issues where you can satisfy your base without offending people in the middle and also finding ways to pull in centrists without turning off your biggest supporters. ***)

What it all comes down to is that maybe some people in the middle may drift either way, but a Democratic President is never going to be able to truly satisfy conservatives and a Republican President will never be able to make liberals happy.

So whoever the candidate is for President, you vote Republican because even the worst RINO will better serve your interests than the most conservative Democrat.

Question: "Since you put a lot of effort into dumping all over Condi, who is the conservative candidate that fits all eight of your qualifiers that you'd like to see get the nom in 2008?

That's the main question, but I'll take the opportunity to rip on some of the others from Ruffini's poll:

Guiliani: shelf life, personal skeletons, wobbly social positions
Newt: longer shelf life, divorces, left Congress in disgrace in 99
McCain: duh
Pataki: are you kidding?
Tancredo: irresponsible lightweight, killed himself with his nuke Mecca comment, isolationist and highly anti-immigrant (even legal)
Frist: he can't even lead the Senate
Romney: huge wobbly question mark from one of the bluest states in the Union
Hagel: undistinguished Senator, was busted by the Ethics Committee for lying about his ownership of a voting machine company, has compared Iraq to Vietnam
Huckabee: might have some promise, but is virtually Bill Clinton II, probably the most appealing of the lot
Brownback: ultraconservative Senator without much of a record or name recognition

So yeah, not exactly a power-packed list here." -- Mike_M

Answer: Out of the current batch of candidates, my current favorite is George Allen. If it came right down to it, I think he'd be a solid candidate.

But -- and this is a huge "but" -- what you have to remember is that the best batch of candidates -- the governors -- haven't even gotten into the game yet (*** The big name governors from liberal states -- like Pataki and Romney --don't have much of a chance. ***) Governors have experience running a state, they're not "tainted" by being in Washington, they've never had to compromise like Senators, and yet they've got a nice track record for the voters and conservatives to take a look at.

Some people are looking past some of the governors who may be top candidates because they're not well known nationally yet. But, remember a guy by the name of Howard Dean? He was a complete nobody from Vermont before he caught fire and became the early front runner for the Democratic nomination last year.

There is a large group of Republican governors who might make excellent candidates: Mike Huckabee (AR), Mark Sanford (SC), Bill Owens (CO), Haley Barbour (MS), Tim Pawlenty (MN), Ernie Fletcher (KY), & Jeb Bush (FL), just to name a few.

However, at this point, there's just no way to know which of these guys is going to run, whether they can build an organization and raise money, and how well they'll do trying to build name recognition.

So, until these guys get in the race, it may be fun to speculate on who'd make the best candidate, but it's too early to make a call.

Iraqi National Assembly To Vote On Constitution Today

China A Staging Ground For Computer Attacks. Hackers Able To Penetrate Unclassified U.S. Government Networks

Bolton Throws UN Summit Into Chaos. Bush's Envoy Demands 750 Changes To Reorganisation Plans (Give 'Em Hell)

US Army Re-Enlistment 'Strong'

Anti-War Protests Target Wounded At Army Hospital

Cindy Sheehan, The "Rosa Parks" Of The Anti-War Movement, Calls Bin Laden Alleged Terrorist

American Legion Declares War on Protestors -- Media Next?

Al Sharpton Plans To Join Texas Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan

Hospital Fights to Retain "Do Not Resuscitate" Order Despite Child's Improvement

Illegal Immigrants Threw Rocks At A Border Patrol Helicopter, Forcing The Pilot To Make An Emergency Landing When One Of The Rocks Damaged The Rotor

Robert Samuelson: Retirement At 70 (Free WAPO Reg Req)

George Will: The Left's Folly

Michael Fumento: Despite Media Blackout, Fallujah Rebuilds

Jeff Jacoby: Iraq Is No Vietnam

Joe Roche: 'Wonderful Time To Be A Soldier'

Amir Taheri: Iraq's Constitutional Choices

Lance Armstrong Goes on the Counterattack Against The French

Brigitte Bardot Calls For Halt To Use Of Puppies As Shark Bait

South Africa: Man Forced To Have Sex At Gunpoint By 3 Woman

Kenya: Man Hacks Off Woman's Hand When She Refuses His Marriage Proposal

Website Of The Day: The Bernoulli Effect

Today is Q&A Friday #21 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!

"The fact is that we are not experiencing casualty rates anywhere near past conflicts, nor for that matter as bad as during peacetime. There were weeks in Vietnam when 350-400 Americans died, and in other wars thousands would die in single battles. Nothing like that is happening now.

From 1983 to 1996, more than 18,000 soldiers died. That averages to more than 1,300 a year, far more than have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan each year. Yes, that was mostly from accidents, drunk driving and other mishaps. Yet, while protesters in Crawford, Texas and elsewhere would have you think that our military can't survive with the low casualty rates of this war, I wonder why they were willing to accept the much higher peacetime casualty rates of the past? We lost around 3,000 innocent people on September 11, and with four years of war and the toppling of two regimes, we haven't lost that many in combat." -- Sgt. Joe Roche of the 12th Aviation Battalion and stationed at Fort Belvoir

If you need any proof that fringe wackoism is now considered to be completely mainstream on the left, then you need look no further than recent statements by George McGovern and Cindy Sheehan.

To begin with, here's McGovern:

"Along more political lines, McGovern recognized Kerry in the audience and said the crowd would be calling him President Kerry if the last election hadn't been rigged. Then again, he said, that might not be the case if the election before that hadn't been rigged, too, and Al Gore had won." -- The Rocky Mountain News

Keep in mind, folks, this isn't some no-name blogger or a denizen of the Democratic Underground claiming that the elections in 2000 and 2004 were rigged; it's George McGovern, the Democrats' nominee for President in 1972!

Meanwhile, Cindy Sheehan, the "Rosa Parks" of the anti-war movement, a woman who is revered on the left, had this to say:

"Cindy Sheehan just finished her morning media event. When asked by reporters, Sheehan said she believes that while she supports the continued hunt for Osama bin Laden she believes the U.S. should withdraw from Afghanistan and “stop bombing innocent people.” She also described Osama bin Laden as being “allegedly” behind the attacks of 9/11." -- The Buzz

So McGovern thinks our elections are rigged and the spokesman for the anti-war movement wants to cut and run IN AFGHANISTAN and doesn't seem to think Osama Bin Laden is behind 9/11.

It's like the looniness is a virus, slowly spreading, month by month through the entire Democratic Party...

After the disastrous gas lines of the seventies & the much publicized rolling blackouts in California, which were both caused by price controls, you'd think that people would finally start to figure out that the laws of supply and demand cannot be changed by government decree.

But unfortunately these lessons appear to have been lost on Hawaii's governor, Linda Lingle (R), who has decided to place caps on wholesale gasoline prices.

Let's take a moment to explain why price controls on gas are a bad idea.

Normally, the cost of gasoline is determined by supply and demand. As the price for gas rises, demand tapers off. For example, as gas prices go up, some people will decide to drive less, others will car pool, and others will use public transportation. This actually helps keep costs down by lessening demand.

However, when the government interferes with gas prices in the form of price controls, it causes the market to go haywire. Because costs paid by consumers are artificially low, demand is going to be higher than it should be.

Moreover, because producers are being paid less than their product is worth because of price controls, it's likely to cause a reduction in supply. For example, if you had a choice between making 5 cents a gallon selling your gas in Hawaii or 25 cents a gallon in the rest of the US, you're going to strongly prefer to sell your gas some place other than Hawaii. Moreover, if you actually lose money selling your gas in Hawaii, you're going to try to avoid selling gas there all together.

So, what will end up happening eventually is a level of demand for gas that's significantly higher than it should be and a supply of gas that's significantly lower than it should be. That leads to shortages. As a matter of fact, price controls were exactly what led to long waiting lines for gasoline in the late seventies.

There's nothing surprising about that. As Thomas Sowell has noted, this is a pattern that has repeated over and over throughout human history

"Shortages where the government sets prices have been common in countries around the world, for centuries on end, whether these shortages have taken the form of waiting lists, black markets, or other ways of coping with the fact that what people demand at an artificially low price exceeds what other people will supply at such prices. This principle is not limited to medical care. There were waiting lines for food, undershirts, and all sorts of other things in the Communist bloc countries in Eastern Europe before the collapse of Communism in that region. You had to get on a waiting list to buy a poorly made car in India before they began to free up their economy from government controls. You could go back literally thousands of years and find shortages under price controls in the Roman Empire or in ancient Babylon. But it is still front-page news today because elementary economics has not yet sunk in."

Linda Lingle and her constituents in Hawaii should know better.

I'm a huge fan of Walter Williams and not just because he was nice enough to do an interview with me. Williams is a brilliant and incisive writer, quick on his feet, and he excels at explaining complicated subjects in an easy to understand way.

You'll see what I'm talking about as you read these quotes (*** Link Corrected ***)

"According to every poll taking the pulse of Hispanics in the past decade, this population takes seriously the issue of illegal immigration. That includes Mexican Americans, the one subgroup that you might think — because of their ancestors' experience — would be most sympathetic to immigrants, even illegal ones.

One of the latest polls appeared in last week's issue of Time magazine, in which 61 percent of Hispanics rated illegal immigration a "serious problem."

Then there was the recent survey put out by the Pew Hispanic Center, which measured the views of both native-born Hispanics and immigrants. It found that a majority of U.S.-born Hispanics (60 percent) support laws that deny driver's licenses to illegal immigrants." -- Ruben Navarrette Jr

Agents Blocked Suspected Suicide Bomber From Entering U.S.

Maj Gen Douglas Lute Sees Significant Withdrawal In Iraq Over The Next 12 Months

A Video Probably Made By Hizbullah—and Possibly Iran—is Helping Iraqi Insurgents Wage Their War

Muslims Who Want To Live Under Islamic Sharia Law Have Been Told To Get Out Of Australia

Some Sunnis Trying To Bring Back The Ba’ath Party

The Marshlands Of Iraq, Which Were Drained During The Early 1990s, Are Returning To Their Original State

Returns to Texas War Protest

Move Over, Cindy: Bush Singles Out Other Military Mom

Pat Robertson Apologizes For Calling For The Assassination Of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez

Panel Approves Most Military Base Closures

Poll Shows Bush Approval Ratings Sink to Lowest Point in Presidency

Virginia: State Legislators Urge Gov. Mark Warner To Declare Illegal Alien Crisis

Federal Judge OKs Global Warming Lawsuit (Ridiculous)

Ann Coulter: Conservatives Cause Global Warming And Liberal Press

Heather Mac Donald: Don’t Fund College Follies

Nathan Tabor: Liberals Are Really Socialists

Thomas Sowell: An Oil "Crisis"? Part II

Missouri Welcomes Home A War Hero

ABC Booted Michael Graham For Linking Islam To Terrorism. Now He's Back At Rightalk Radio On The Net

French Paper Claims Lance Armstrong Used Banned Substance In 1999

Website Of The Day: La Shawn Barber's Corner

Last week when purchasing a burger at Burger King for $1.58. The counter girl took my $2 and I was digging for my change when I pulled 8 cents from my pocket and gave it to her. She stood there, holding the nickel and 3 pennies, while looking at the screen on her register. I sensed her discomfort and tried to tell her to just give me two quarters, but she hailed the manager for help. While he tried to explain the transaction to her, she stood there and cried.

Why do I tell you this?

Because of the evolution in teaching math since the 1950s:

Teaching Math In 1950

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?

Teaching Math In 1960

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. &nbs p;What is his profit?

Teaching Math In 1970

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit?

Teaching Math In 1980

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.

Teaching Math In 1990

A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong answers.)

Teaching Math In 2005

Un hachero vende una carretada de maderapara $100. El costo de la producción es $80

This content was used with the permission of DANEgerus

Except for few desperate individuals driven to violence by U.S. imperialism, Islam is a Religion of Peace. Christianity, on the other hand, has been the engine of world suffering for over 2000 years. It was Christianity that nearly eradicated the indigenous peoples of this continent, the survivors condemned to the perpetual humiliation of cartoon stereotypes and offensive sports mascots. It was Bush's Christian cousin, Adolf Hitler, who sent hundreds of homosexuals and midgets to the gas chambers even as great agnostics like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. fought against racial injustice. And it is the Christians who constantly subvert our political process by allowing their "moral compass" to determine how they should vote, rather than NARAL or labor union leaders. Now, the man described by the New York Times as "The Unequivocal Voice of Christian Conservativism - Perhaps Even Christianity Itself" has called for the murder of a benevolent Latin American leader. Alas, the heartless evil of the American Taliban has been never been so palpably insidious.

With a red beret and a thick Latin accent that makes the panties of every progressive American glisten with dew, Hugo Chavez is much more than your typical Marxist revolutionary. Unlike Bush, he's a democratically elected leader who is greatly loved by his people. He's also one of the few Latin American leaders not installed and controlled by the CIA, which has made him the target of several Bush-ordered coups and failed assassination attempts. But in spite of U.S. imperialist plots to poison his Fruit Loops, Chavez has instituted widespread social and economic reforms. This year, he was honored by both Greenpeace and Amnesty International for disposing of the old corroded car batteries in his torture chambers and using cleaner, more efficient solar power to energize the nation's impoverished testicles. Furthermore, spontaneous human decapitations have dropped by 12 percent on Chavez's watch. Can Bush say as much? I don't think so.

It's no wonder, then, that Pat Robertson has issued a death warrant on Papa Chavez.

For the lack of a more gender neutral noun, our founding "fathers" never intended for one man to wield so much power over the mouth-breathing, biblethumping lemmings of Jesusland. That's why they constructed a wall between church and state - the only thing in the Living Breathing Constitution that isn't ethereal or anachronistic. It's for our protection, people! One word from this Osama Bin Laden of the Religious Right and Christian sleeper cells could be activated all across the nation, acting all Holier-Than-Thou and making gay couples feel like second class citizens. Before you know it, Robert Schuller would be sawing off the heads of fornicators on The Hour of Power.

Venezuelan Vice President Charles Rangel (D) had it right. Calls for the assassination of world leaders should be done only by the seasoned professionals on Air America, where they can be directed at members of the Bush administration in a humorous, light-hearted fashion. What Robertson did goes beyond the pale. In a free, democratic society like Venezuela, he'd never get away with it.

This satire was used with the permission of BlameBush!.

Conservatives love Condi Rice. In fact, they love her so much that's she's annihilating everyone in Patrick Ruffini's blogosphere straw poll. Heck, she's such a popular choice that she's actually beating the next 4 candidates COMBINED!

That's unfortunate because at this point, Condi Rice appears to be a weak candidate who I think would have enormous difficulty beating Hillary Clinton in 2008. Consider the following points:

1) She's a single, unmarried woman over 50 years old. That means the press will be able to successfully portray her as either a lesbian, a weirdo, or a lesbian weirdo. Americans will not vote for a lesbian President and they're not too fond of weirdos either.

2) She's had no success in bringing in the black vote to the Bush administration so far, so why does anyone think she'll be able to do it if she runs? In all likelihood the Democratic smear machine would crank up, they'd portray her as David Duke in a skirt, and she would probably end up pulling just 3-4% more of the black vote than Bush did.

3) She has never run for office before.

4) She's not particularly warm or charismatic.

5) She is so closely tied to Bush that the left-wing base would be energized by her in the same way that the GOP base would be energized by a Hillary candidacy. Only Jeb or Cheney would motivate the Democratic base more.

6) She's pro-abortion.

7) She's pro-Affirmative Action.

8) Most of her other domestic views are completely unknown. For example, what does Condi think about illegal immigration, the Terri Schiavo case, reparations, or a Balanced Budget Amendment? Nobody has the slightest idea. She could be to the left of Arlen Specter & Susan Collins as far we know.

Condi Rice has done a great job as Secretary of State and has shown that she can handle foreign policy. But, as a politician, she's a novice who hasn't proven that she could win a seat in a state legislature, much less capture the Presidency of the United States.

This post was inspired by the folks over at Lifelike Pundits who couldn't understand why some people didn't support Condi, despite her popularity.

When you finish up with Right Wing News today, make sure to check out my other blog, Conservative Grapevine for some of the best stories in the blogosphere today.

If you're not reading RWN and Conservative Grapevine, you're not getting the full story.

Cindy Sheehan, the woman who so embodies what the anti-war movement stands for that she has been called the "Rosa Parks" of the movement, says she's headed back to Crawford.

When she gets there, maybe some of the members of the media who have been fawning over her will ask her why she supports terrorism. Oh, you didn't know that "Saint Cindy" seems to be rooting for the other team in Iraq?

Maybe that's because she told CBS all about it, but they chose to protect her by not reporting it. WorldNetDaily has the scoop:

"Cindy Sheehan, the so-called Peace Mom seeking a second meeting with President Bush in connection with the Iraq War death of her son, says terrorists killing Americans are "freedom fighters."

She made the remark during her trek earlier this month to Crawford, Texas; but her equating the enemy with freedom fighters has not been highlighted by the mainstream media, despite her telling it directly to a reporter for CBS News.

Sheehan's comments were recorded on video by Veterans for Peace, a group pushing for Bush's impeachment. (Editor's note: The video of Cindy Sheehan is approximately 30 minutes long, and requires several minutes to load, even with a high-speed connection.)

"You know that the president says Iraq is the central front in the war on terrorism, don't you believe that?" asked Mark Knoller of CBS, surrounded by a host of other reporters.

"No, because it's not true," Sheehan replied. "You know Iraq was no threat to the United States of America until we invaded. I mean they're not even a threat to the United States of America. Iraq was not involved in 9-11, Iraq was not a terrorist state. But now that we have decimated the country, the borders are open, freedom fighters from other countries are going in, and they [American troops] have created more terrorism by going to an Islamic country, devastating the country and killing innocent people in that country. The terrorism is growing and people who never thought of being car bombers or suicide bombers are now doing it because they want the United States of America out of their country."

A WorldNetDaily search of CBS News, Google News, and Lexis-Nexis archives found not a single news report mentioning Sheehan's "freedom fighters" remark."

Setting aside the fact that Sheehan is completely wrong about Iraq not being a terrorist state, she thinks that terrorists going to Iraq are "(F)reedom fighters from other countries?" I guess that would apply to Al-Qaeda's man in Iraq, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, wouldn't it? He's in Iraq from another country in order to fight America.

Moreover, if the terrorists sawing off people's heads and driving car bombs into crowds of people are the good guys in Cindy Sheehan's eyes -- the "freedom fighters" -- she must have a pretty low opinion of the American soldiers over there fighting them. It's not much different than Michael Moore's comparison of the terrorists in Iraq to the Minutemen. If the terrorists in Iraq are "Minutemen," if they're "freedom fighters," doesn't that mean the US troops are the bad guys? Doesn't it also imply that Moore and Sheehan are hoping that they lose?

That seems like a fair question to ask. After all, aren't Americans glad the Minutemen won? Don't we root for freedom fighters to defeat the people they're fighting against?

Perhaps one of the gaggle of reporters who follow Cindy Sheehan's every move might take a moment to ask her about those "freedom fighters" car bombing, suicide bombing, and decapitating their way across Iraq. It would seem to be a rather relevant and telling question to ask of a woman who has been put on a pedestal and treated as a spokesman for the anti-war movement....

One of the most controversial items from a western standpoint is the role Islam will play in the laws of Iraq. The common cry [paraphrased] is “did we sacrifice our soldiers to establish an Islamist state?” Security Watchtower excerpts the text of the draft submitted to assembly (the full text can be viewed at Newsday.com). The text of the constitution gives sound reason to believe Iraq is not being established as an Islamist state. Article Two of the submitted draft explains the role of both Islam and democracy:

The political system is republican, parliamentary, democratic and federal.
1. Islam is a main source for legislation.

* a. No law may contradict Islamic standards.

* b. No law may contradict democratic standards.

* c. No law may contradict the essential rights and freedoms mentioned in this constitution.

Article Seven denounces terrorism and vows to fight it. Chapter Six, Article 151 grants the women one-quarter of the seats on the assembly. Article 36 grants “Freedom of expression by all means” and “Freedom of the press, printing, advertising and publishing.” Article 39 states “Iraqis are free to abide in their personal lives according to their religion, sects, beliefs or choice.” The rights of various ethnic groups are protected throughout the document. These are not the guarantees of an Islamist state such as that of the Taliban or Iran.

It is unreasonable to assume Islam will not play a role in influencing the society of Iraq, or any other predominately Muslim nation. Christianity played an influential role in the laws and society of western nations, and continues to do so today.

The real test of Iraq’s commitment to democratic principles under the influence of Islam will come with the implementation of the constitution by the next elected assembly. But to state an Islamist regime has been created based on the text of the constitution is unfounded. A simple reading of the document will reveal this.

Update:

Robert Mayer notes that Afghanistan's constitution is similarly worded, and there was no hue and cry when it was ratified.

This content was used with the permission of The Fourth Rail

Cindy Sheehan: Terrorists In Iraq "Freedom Fighters"

Cindy Sheehan: I'm Coming Back To Crawford

Bush: Anti-War Protestors "Advocating A Policy That Would Weaken The United States"

Bush Administration Distances Itself From Robertson Comments On Chavez

Big Brother Comes To New York: Lockheed Will Install 1,000 Cameras And 3,000 Sensors In Ny Subway

What Can the Government Do to Lower Gas Prices?

Nursing Home Wrestles With $40,000 Tab For Well-Liked Illegal Alien With Dementia

Egyptian Police Nab 500 in Sinai Terrorist Sweep

Venezuela Slams Robertson Over Remarks

Libya Says To Be Taken Off U.S. Terrorism

Ralph Peters: The Real Iraq News (Free NYP Reg Req)

Brendan Miniter: Conservatives Learn To Fight Like Liberals

Thomas Sowell: An Oil 'Crisis'?

Jonah Goldberg: Divided Over A Wall

Kevin Hassett: Democrats Need New Ideas, Not New Think Tanks

Residents To Troops: Put Your Wallets Away

The August 2008 Straw Poll: Go Vote, Today

Germany: A Man Kept His Dead Wife Sitting In Her Favourite Armchair For A Year Because He "Didn't Want To Lose Her"

Man Spends $200,000 On Plastic Surgery To Look Like A Cat (W/Freaky Pic)

Website Of The Day: NewsBusters

"By rights, Democrats should be the most anti-illegal-immigration of the two parties. The benefits of illegal immigration go disproportionately to employers and people rich enough to hire nannies, pool cleaners, etc. They get to hire low-paid workers with very few rights. The costs fall on minorities and low-skill workers, whose wages are undercut." -- Rich Lowry

One of my all-time favorite posts in the blogosphere was called "Denigrating the Overblog" by the Flying Space Monkey Chronicles.

Now this was a brilliant concept:

Who's getting entirely too much traffic and doesn't deserve it? Got any nominations? Rules are the same as the one for underblogs except backwards...or...something like that.

Put the names/URLs (max 5) of blogs in comments along with why you think they get too much traffic and we'll have a vote or a random drawing or I'll up and pick the top 20. The top 20 winners losers, them, hehe, we'll all take them off our blogrolls and NEVER, EVER GO THERE AGAIN."

Granted, I don't have a blogroll to drop anyone from and I refuse to promise not to go to any particular blog, but still, this is a great idea. In fact, it's such a great idea that I got permission from the man, from Spacemonkey himself -- hehehe, that guy has a funny name -- to run this same concept on RWN.

So, in the comments section, post the 5 blogs you think are most overrated (1 post per person please).

You other bloggers out there? I know you might not want to post your lists publicly for obvious reasons, but you can still send your readers on over to RWN so they can have their say.

Come on, you know you want to stick it to those overrated bloggers who get all that traffic they don't deserve and steal ideas that smaller blogs like the Flying Space Monkey Chronicles come up with -- uh, wait, maybe, I should rephrase that?

Anyway, "Denigrate the Overblog" in the comments section: you know you want to do it!

Yesterday was a historic day in Iraq as the draft of their Constitution was completed.

Here are some of the details:

"People who have viewed the document said it includes vague language weakening Iraq's strong central government, enshrining a federalist system in which regions could split off, and addressing how oil revenue is to be split among Baghdad and the provinces.

The text calls for liberties such as freedom of expression and the press. It gives Islam a role in national affairs, while offering Iraqis the option of following civil code in areas such as marriage, divorce and inheritance.

But the drafting committee left it up to the National Assembly to sort out issues including specifics on regional rights, the language of the preamble, the removal of Saddam Hussein's former Baath party members from government and the exact role of the presidency, officials said.

...On the divisive issue of women's rights in matters of marriage, divorce and inheritance, the constitution would allow Iraqis to choose to have the matters heard in religious courts run by clerics or in federal courts run by judges.

On the role of religion in legislation, the draft constitution calls Islam "a main source" of legislation instead of "the main source," as many conservative Shiites had demanded. But it would allow clerics to serve on the Supreme Court.

Politicians said a formula for distributing oil revenues had been worked out, though they disclosed few details."

Coming up with a Constitution is a tremendous step forward for Iraq, although do keep in mind that there will be a referendum in October and if 2/3rds of 3 of Iraq's 18 provinces reject the document, they have to go back to the drawing board. That means the Sunnis, who don't seem to be particularly happy with the Constitution, could have the opportunity to kill it. Time will tell.

But in the interim, Iraq's Constitution should be celebrated as a big step forward. Of course, in today's political climate where any success is a threat to anti-war politicians, you can expect to be blitzed with a massive amount of negative spin on this great accomplishment.

So with that in mind, remember two important things:

#1) We are a Western, Christian nation with more than 200 years of experience with Democracy. To expect that Iraq, which is on the other side of the world, has an entirely different culture, and has a population that is overwhelmingly Muslim, is going to produce a Constitution that looks exactly like ours is ludicrous. As a matter of fact, we often don't even agree WITH OTHER AMERICANS on Amendments and interpretations to our own Constitution, so how can we expect to see eye to eye with the Iraqis on every issue? We can't.

#2) We're hearing quite understandable concerns that religion will play too much of a role in Iraqi life, that Sharia will be enforced in Iraq, or that women will be forced to wear a veil.

As to the role of religion, the Iraqis seem to have dodged the bullet there by not making Islam "the main source" of legislation, although their Constitution still isn't as secular as ours. As far as Sharia goes, that seems unlikely. So does the veil in most of Iraq, although you could see it in certain Shia areas.

But in any case, I would just say that Iraqis wrote their own Constitution, they're having a constitutional referendum on it, they'll have an opportunity to amend the Constitution later, and they'll be able to vote in their own representatives.

That's how it works in democracies: they set their own rules, the politicians make their stand at the ballot box, and the people determine who's right. If the Iraqi people don't like veils or other religious laws, then you expect politicians who support those measures to be punished at the ballot box. That's as it should be.

What it all comes down to is that Iraq isn't an American colony, they're a free people, and as such, they've got to be allowed to make their own decisions. That's a big part of the reason we stayed on in Iraq, to help them become a democracy, and it's good to see that the Iraqis are making very significant progress in that area...

*** Update #1 ***: Text of the proposed Iraqi Constitution.

*** Update #2 ***: A few Articles of note from the Iraqi Constitution:

Article Two

The political system is republican, parliamentary, democratic and federal.

1. Islam is a main source for legislation.

-- a. No law may contradict Islamic standards.

-- b. No law may contradict democratic standards.

-- c. No law may contradict the essential rights and freedoms mentioned in this constitution.

Article Seven

1. Any organization that follow a racist, terrorist, extremist, sectarian-cleaning ideology or circulates or justifies such beliefs is banned, especially Saddam's Baath Party in Iraq and its symbols under any name. And this should not be part of the political pluralism in Iraq.

2. The government is committed to fighting terrorism in all its forms, and works to protect Iraqi soil from being a center or passage for terrorist activities.

Article 36

The State guarantees:

1. Freedom of expression by all means.

2. Freedom of the press, printing, advertising and publishing.

Article 39

Iraqis are free to abide in their personal lives according to their religion, sects, beliefs or choice. This should be organized by law.

Article 135

This constitution guarantees the administrative, political, cultural and educational rights of different ethnic groups such as Turkomen, Chaldean, Assyrians and other groups.

Article 151

No less than 25 percent of Council of Deputies seats go to women

Pat Robertson has been ripped up one side and down the other for calling for the assassination of anti-American Commie, Hugo Chavez:

"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don't think any oil shipments will stop.

We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator," he continued. "It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

I hate to be the one to swim against the tide of public opinion (Well, actually I don't), but as long as we don't get caught, liquidating Chavez would be perfectly fine with me.

As far as I'm concerned, a world without Hugh Chavez in it would be a better place. Same goes for Castro.

Still, I have a Machiavellian view of US foreign policy. It seems a bit odd to see a preacher, even if it is Pat Robertson, who seems to think the same way...

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

"Assassination is about the least Christian way of dealing with conflict imaginable...even war can be justifiable, but never cold blooded murder. No matter who the target is. Even bombing Khadaffi's house in Libya was more honorable since he had deliberately provoked a conflict and knew we were coming. -- Mike_M

In the past (and in some cases as we speak), we've used spies, threats, sanctions, coups, invasions, assassinations and if necessary, we've even leveled cities full of civilians. During the Cold War, we even went so far as to make it clear that we reserved the right to use a first nuclear strike on another nation. Really, what more can be done to a nation than that?

Now, don't misunderstand. I'm not saying that we should threaten violence against other nations when we don't get our way or that might makes right. But, when you're talking about an America hating Commie sitting on a strategically important pool of oil, like Hugo Chavez, I have very few qualms about doing what's necessary to get rid of him if it's to our advantage.

As a fan of limited government and an amateur student of the growth of English liberties (I once wrote a long essay on the roots of the right against self-incrimination in Stuart England), I have long accepted - at the level of an article of faith - that the jury is an important bedrock of our liberties. I must confess, however, that nothing since the OJ criminal verdict has shaken my faith in juries as much as the details coming out of the recent verdict against Merck in the first Vioxx suit.

At the outset, I am prepared to admit that the evidence of cover-ups and so on at Merck is non-trivial. But that wasn't the gravamen of this suit. The question here was whether Vioxx caused Robert Ernst 's death. This is, obviously, a question of medical science. What killed Ernst and could Vioxx have caused it?

Unfortunately, if the WSJ($)'s reporting is to be believed, the jurors basically didn't understand - and, indeed, didn't even try to understand - the science:

Merck argued that Vioxx couldn't have caused Mr. Ernst's death because, according to his death certificate, he died of an arrhythmia or irregular heartbeat, not a heart attack. While scientific evidence suggests Vioxx can promote blood clots leading to a heart attack, no data have linked the drug with arrhythmias.

Jurors who voted against Merck said much of the science sailed right over their heads. "Whenever Merck was up there, it was like wah, wah, wah," said juror John Ostrom, imitating the sounds Charlie Brown's teacher makes in the television cartoon. "We didn't know what the heck they were talking about."

At the very least, this incident thus raises serious questions as to the competence of lay jurors to resolve technical issues. To be sure, there is some evidence that how technical evidence is presented matters a lot, and some suggestion in the press accounts that Merck's lawyers may not have done a very good job of presenting the evidence in a way that would maximize understanding. Even so, at the very least, this case confirms the urgent need for objective study of the ability of lay juries to understand and process scientific evidence. If it turns out that they cannot do so, perhaps it is time to take these sorts of issues out of their hands.

Equally troubling are the reports suggesting that the jury was swayed by emotional and personal considerations.

... [juror] Ostrom, 49, who has a business remodeling homes, was also disturbed that former Merck Chief Executive Raymond Gilmartin and another top Merck official gave videotaped testimony but weren't in the courtroom. "The big guys didn't show up," said Mr. Ostrom. "That didn't sit well with me. Most definitely an admission of guilt."

I have observed that giving folks unaccustomed to power a small dose of it often results in them taking offense at any perceived slight. (Mea culpa.) They expect to be kowtowed to and will react negatively when they are "dissed." But are we really better off if the top Merck management has to spend the next 10 years or so sitting through thousands of trials? (I understand that cruise ships have two captains - one to actually run the ship while the other glad hands the passengers. Maybe that's what Merck should do. One CEO to run the company, while another strikes jurors in every backwater court in the US.)

Then there's the Oprah effect:

One juror, Ms. Blas, had written in her questionnaire that she loves the Oprah Winfrey show and tapes it. "This jury believes they're going to get on Oprah," Ms. Blue told Mr. Lanier. "They only get on Oprah if they vote for the plaintiff."

Two days later, facing the jury with his final argument, Mr. Lanier ... hammered home the point that they would be sending a message that would be heard widely. "I can't promise Oprah," he said, but "there are going to be a lot of people who'll want to know how you had the courage to do it."

As he made the Oprah reference, Mr. Lanier looked at Ms. Blas in the eye. She says she broke out into laughter and liked the lawyer's attention to her. "That told me he read those profiles and tried to assess each and every one of us," Ms. Blas said.

Leaving liability determinations in the hands of people like Ms Blas has real costs, as Richard Epstein explained in a WSJ($) op-ed:

"I would like to send my message to Mr. Lanier and those indignant jurors. It's not from an irate tort professor, but from a scared citizen who is steamed that those "good people" have imperiled his own health and that of his family and friends. None of you have ever done a single blessed thing to help relieve anybody's pain and suffering. Just do the math to grasp the harm that you've done.

Right now there are over 4,000 law suits against Merck for Vioxx. If each clocks in at $25 million, then your verdict is that the social harm from Vioxx exceeds $100 billion, before thousands more join in the treasure hunt. Pfizer's Celebrex and Bextra could easily be next. Understand that no future drug will be free of adverse side effects, nor reach market, without the tough calls that Merck had to make with Vioxx. Your implicit verdict is to shut down the entire quest for new medical therapies. Your verdict says you think that the American public is really better off with just hot-water bottles and leftover aspirin tablets.

Ah, you will say, but we're only after Vioxx, and not those good drugs. Sorry, the investment community won't take you at your word. It realizes that any new drug which treats common chronic conditions can generate the same ruinous financial losses as Vioxx, because the flimsy evidence on causation and malice you cobbled together in the Ernst case can be ginned up in any other. Clever lawyers like Mr. Lanier will be able to ambush enough large corporations in small, dusty towns where they will stand the same chance of survival that Custer had at Little Big Horn. Investors can multiply: They won't bet hundreds of millions of dollars in new therapies on the off-chance of being proved wrong. They know they'll go broke if they win 90% of the time.

Your appalling carnage cries out for prompt action. Much as I disapprove of how the FDA does business, we must enact this hard-edged no-nonsense legal rule: no drug that makes it through the FDA gauntlet can be attacked for bad warnings or deficient design. In plain English, Mr. Lanier, you're out of court before you make your opening statement. You've already proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the fancy diagrams that university economists use to explain why the negligence system maximizes social welfare is an academic delusion that clever lawyers use to prop up a broken tort system.

It would be a good start.

This content was used with the permission of Professor Bainbridge.

Iraq: Draft Constitution Completed, But Sunnis Unhappy

Israel Evacuates Last Settlement In Gaza Strip

Russia Says Terrorists Pursuing Nukes. Chechen Warlord Hints At Unconventional Attack

Mexican Presidential Race Kicks Off ... In Los Angeles

September 11 Panel Received No Pentagon Data On Mohammed Atta Ex-Chairman Thomas Kean Claims

Pentagon Says They Can't Verify The Able Danger Story

Navy Officer Affirms Able Danger Story, Assertions About Pre-9/11 Data on Atta (Free NYT Reg Req)

George Bush: US Must Finish Job In Iraq To Honor The Fallen

Pat Robertson: Time To Assassinate Chavez. '700 Club' Host Says Venezuelan Leader Poses Imminent Danger

More Young Blacks Ready To Embrace GOP

Is Al Qaeda Of Iraq Wearing Out Its Welcome?

John Fund: Resurrecting Jim Crow For Political Gain

Robert J. Avrech: Help! I`m A Hollywood Republican!

Michael Graham: Well, They Got Me

John Kyl: U.S. Economy Strong, If Unappreciated

Robert Novak: John Thune Driven To Distraction By The Closing Of A Military Base In His State

Report Of Missing Person Leads To Discovery Of 5 Bodies

A 2008 Straw Poll For Republicans: Pick Your Favorite Candidate

Exeter Mom Rallies Support For Troops

Website Of The Day: Political Star

"Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. It is a vital part of our mission. Terrorists like bin Laden and his ally, Zarqawi, are trying to turn Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban, a place where women are beaten, religious and ethnic minorities are executed, and terrorists have sanctuary to plot attacks against free people. Terrorists are trying to block the rise of democracy in Iraq, because they know a free Iraq will deal a decisive blow to their strategy to achieve absolute power. The Iraqi people lived for three decades under an absolute dictatorship, and they will not allow a new set of would-be tyrants to take control of their future.

The response -- (applause) -- the people of Iraq have made a clear choice for all to see. In spite of threats and assassinations, more than eight million citizens defied the car bombers and killers and voted in free elections. (Applause.) In spite of violence, the Iraqi people are building a nation that secures freedom for its citizens and contributes to peace and stability in that region.

Now Iraq's leaders are once again defying the terrorists and pessimists by completing work on a democratic constitution. The establishment of a democratic constitution will be a landmark event in the history of Iraq and the history of the Middle East. All of Iraq's main ethnic and religious groups are working together on this vital project. All made the courageous choice to join the political process, and together they will produce a constitution that reflects the values and traditions of the Iraqi people.

Producing a constitution is a difficult process that involves debate and compromise. We know this from our own history. Our Constitutional Convention was home to political rivalries and regional disagreements. The Constitution our founders produced has been amended many times over. So Americans understand the challenges facing the framers of Iraq's new constitution. We admire their thoughtful deliberations; we salute their determination to lay the foundation for lasting democracy amid the ruins of a brutal dictatorship.

As Iraqis continue to take control of their own future, we will help them take responsibility for their own security. The enemies of a free Iraq are determined. They are adapting their tactics so they can take more innocent life. American and Iraqi forces are adapting our tactics, too. We're on the hunt, side-by-side with Iraqi troops. We're working to defeat the terrorists together. As we hunt down our common enemies, we will continue to train more Iraqi security forces so they can take on more responsibilities in fighting the terrorists. After all, it's their own country.

Our military is strategy is straightforward: As Iraqis stand up, Americans will stand down. And when Iraqi forces can defend their freedom by taking on more and more of the fight to the enemy, our troops will come home with the honor they have earned. (Applause.)

In the long run, victory in the war on terror requires changing the conditions that give rise to violence and extremism. So the third part of our strategy in the war on terror is to spread the hope of freedom across the broader Middle East. Free societies are peaceful societies. By standing with those who stand for their liberty, we will lay the foundation of peace for our children and our grandchildren.

As we work to spread freedom in the Middle East we have cause for optimism. The rise of liberty in Iraq is part of a wider movement in the region. The tide of freedom ebbs and flows, but it is moving in a clear direction, and freedom's tide is rising in the broader Middle East." -- George W. Bush

In my opinion, there are three men who are largely responsible for the resurgence of conservatism over the last 25 years: Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, and Newt Gingrich.

Well, on Friday of last week, I was fortunate to have a chance to do a phone interview with one of those men, Newt Gingrich.

Of course, Newt has exceptional conservative credentials. He was once the Speaker of the House, he's responsible for the Contract with America, & he lead the now famous GOP takeover of the House in 1994. On top of that, Newt has a new book out, "Winning the Future," and there's a possibility that he may even run for President in 2008.

So this is one interview that you're definitely going to want to read.

In order to take a look at the transcript of the interview, which was edited slightly for readability's sake, just click here.

Maybe it's just me, but I figure one of the great things about living in a modern, civilized country is that there aren't a lot of animals roaming around that are capable of making a meal out of you. But apparently, there are people out there who see that as a bug, not a feature:

"If a group of US researchers have their way, lions, cheetahs, elephants and camels could soon roam parts of North America, Nature magazine reports. The plan, which is called Pleistocene re-wilding, is intended to be a proactive approach to conservation.

The initiative would help endangered African animals while creating jobs, the Cornell University scientists say.

...During the Pleistocene era - between 1.8 million to about 10,000 years ago - North America was home to a myriad of mega fauna.

Gaining public acceptance is going to be a huge issue, especially when you talk about reintroducing predators

Once, American cheetah (Acinonyx trumani) prowled the plains hunting pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) - an antelope-like animal found throughout the deserts of the American Southwest - and Camelops, an extinct camelid, browsed on arid land.

But man's arrival on the continent - about 13,000 years ago, according to one prevalent theory - pushed many of these impressive creatures to extinction.

Their disappearance left glaring gaps in the complex web of interactions, upon which a healthy ecosystem depends. The pronghorn, for example, has lost its natural predator and only its startling speed - of up to about 60mph - hints at its now forgotten foe.

..."Obviously, gaining public acceptance is going to be a huge issue, especially when you talk about reintroducing predators," said lead author Josh Donlan, of Cornell University. "There are going to have to be some major attitude shifts. That includes realising predation is a natural role, and that people are going to have to take precautions."

Gee, perhaps these geniuses from Cornell should consider the possibility that the reason these "impressive creatures" were slaughtered to extinction by man was because they were dangerous. Maybe, just maybe, they walked out in their backyard, saw a cheetah, and instead of having an "attitude shift," they thought "Wow, that could eat the kids, maybe I should kill it," and then they stabbed it to death with a spear.

I know, it just seems so primitive, so barbaric -- I mean, how is it that people don't understand that, "Predation is a natural role?" You'd think that as they were being swallowed, the last thought going through their heads would be "Wow, isn't it great to be part of the natural circle of life?"

But, no, instead they just see a danger to their lives and their families and it's just, "kill, kill, kill!" Typical humans, huh?

Hey, wait, I've got a great idea! We'll take the lions, cheetahs, elephants, king cobras, & angry flesh eating devil-gorillas of the past and release hordes of them at Cornell University! You want to talk about kids who are excited to get to the classroom? Well, who wouldn't be excited to get to a safe place after being chased across campus by a lion?

Plus, we could make a reality show out of the whole thing. I mean you want to talk about "Survivor?" Trust me, you haven't seen anything like the Cornell version of Survivor. Think about it, Cornell! You can help the animals, motivate your students, and provide ceaseless hours of entertainment for the rest of the world. It's a win/win/win situation!

Hat tip to Ann Althouse for the story.

Before you ask, yes it's real. Let me anticipate your next question: I have no idea why this was sent to me. But since I got it, enjoy the freaky email that gets progressively crazier as it goes on...

From: SILENT INVASION
Subject: $$$$$$=== GOD

"Do not spill the oil or the wine ( alcohol)"in Revelation.

People think the up prices are temporary and Momma GOV and Uncle Sam will get it back down.

Nope.....wrong.It will spike up to 6 dollars a barrel by this time next year.And not only stay there but keep spiking up until the economy crashes and and we are unbelievably back on horse back.

That is in prophecy too.The armies of the world attack the Israeli area on horseback after years of tank/ gas -gas'tank battles.

All utility bills will go sky high...natural gas too.Food and goods brought in via trucks will cost too much to afford.As soon as China finds more trading partners they will pull the plug and we will go into Great Depression NO.2.But this time we do NOT have plenty of fuel in the earth to help us recover.

What is there is so hard to get out now it is too expensive.The world is going into several chain reaction problems all at once and it will eliminate world p[population, establish a ONE WORLD RELIGION and GOVERNMENT.( Also predicted in the Bible in many places...as the Luciferian Age.)

It is called the END OF AFFLUENCE.As Babylon the Great here --the USA--has committed adultery with it's lovers and they will burn her with FIRE ! The G8 or BEAST NATIONS have given their POWER..to the DRAGON--Red China---this too is all quote unquote in prophecy.

The PMA preachers will loose a grip when this happens shortly.

The HEAT will turn up and shaded areas with water and then ability to grow food will be more important than gold.

It is back to 1800...soon..and only those that have the equipment,know how and food seeds etc. will survive.Picking areas that have the most cloud cover and rain is a wise idea.The sun is going to get unbearable--especially after some preliminary nuclear exchanges.( Russia and China are practicing joint Soviet-Sino drills this month--together--the enemy is the USA.Also see Charleston Gazette today--about it.But their--WV Pravda's- spin is a bit different--they are just having a little fun.Pravda gave away every bunker and silo they could to their comrades.)

Red China has bought up all our Treasury notes..they own us by holding up the stock and bond market.They can take Taiwan at will...they can take LA or NYC at will who is going to challenge that kind of blackmail.

The carbon monoxide and dioxide will make it so HOT down here nothing will survive the sun.

Now put this prophecy behind a living room picture and pull it out 5 yrs from now.

I am exhausted from trying to convince my family and also neighbors etc..Several years of this and finally it is here.I am forced to try to get all the survival goodies myself.

Well, I am pulling off a fast one.You build this ark or you do not get in it.Survival money is going off to Disney World etc. as usual and I am at the end of my rope.It will be me and a backpack and my rifle going for the mountains. I have to get rid of this truck now probably even before I get the work done here first--that requires a truck.

Life in the USA is about to totally end as we know it.I see so called radio towers going up but only half way--on the Interstates..They sit as ready made tree houses made out of steel just waiting for a bullet proof guard tower -with 50 cal NV machine guns.

The things I wrote about across the net for years--like guys I know that delivered quickie to set up plastic aluminum jails hidden off the super highways -and warned lists on the net and radio hosts and was called a nut--well get ready it is about show time.

Chaos will be delt with.People are going to panic and get very desperate.The Cleansing is here.

If you're not reading my other blog, Conservative Grapevine, then you're missing out on some of the best posts in the blogosphere. Make sure to check it out after you finish up with Right Wing News today.

"If you allow those who are the most vocal and most antagonistic to get a meeting with the president for fear that publicity will hurt you if you don't, you're creating incentives for your critics to become even more antagonistic and more vocal. Then, you're forever stuck in: Will you or won't you meet? You'll no longer lead. You'll just wrestle with meetings." -- Ari Fleischer

Agreed.

Furthermore, why meet with someone who has already lied about her first meeting with you and only wants to get together with you to further a political agenda?

Bush has already met with "about 900 family members of some 270 soldiers killed in Iraq or Afghanistan," including Cindy Sheehan. If Bush wants to meet with more families, good for him. But after her recent behavior Cindy Sheehan certainly doesn't deserve a 2nd meeting.

Scotland Yard Believes It Has Thwarted An Al-Qaeda Gas Attack Aimed At Ministers And MPs In Parliament

20 of 21 Gaza Settlements Evacuated

Four U.S. Soldiers Killed In Afghan Blast

Leaders in Iraq Report Progress on Constitution (Free NYT Reg Req)

Sunnis Warn Against Constitution Draft

Iraq Slams Jordan For Allowing Saddam's Relatives To Fund Insurgency

GOP Senator Chuck Hagel Says Iraq Looking Like Vietnam (I Detest Hagel)

Reid Resting in Nev. After Mini-Stroke (Hope He Feels Better Soon)

U.S. Base Closing Commissioners Question Cost Savings

Scarborough Has Decided Not To Run For Senate (Too Bad)

The Kelo Fall-Out Continues: Daytona Businesses Must Sell Property

Rancher Loses Border Ranch To Immigrants Who Trespassed On His Land

Court Rules Atheism A Religion. Decides 1st Amendment Protects Prison Inmate's Right To Start Study Group (How Moronic)

Michael Graham: For Linking Islam, Terror

Steve Forbes: A Flat Tax Would Unleash A Stupendous Economic Boom

Mark Steyn: 'Peace Mom's' Marriage A Metaphor For Dems

Jed Babbin: Bush Needs To Do A Better Job Of Explaining The War On Terror

Michael Barone: Of Minds And Metrics In The War On Terror

Jeff Jacoby: Trent Lott's Unlearned Lesson

Lott Settles Scores With GOP In New Book

Kerry And McGovern Show Up For Suicide Victim Hunter S. Thompson's Bizarre Death Ceremony

Scream Baffles Ohio Town

Website Of The Day: Snapshots