Take My Word For It, Jews Don't Rule The World

The Chickenhawk Slur

Making The Case For A Federal Marriage Amendment

Get Your Antennae Up!

Answering 20 Frequently Asked Questions About Conservatism

How Long Did It Take To Build An Audience?

25 Pieces Of Advice For Bloggers

The 'Very, Very' Rule Of Building Traffic For Your Blog

Blogger Influence Comes Mostly From "The Who", Not The "How Many"

Polling Conservative Opinion Makers About Blogs

Will The Libertarians Or Other Third Parties Ever Make A Big Political Splash?

Why Did The Brits Allow The Israelis To Create A State?

Piece Of Crap List

Would School Vouchers Lead To Overcrowding?

How Do You Convince People That Republicans Aren't Racists?

Conservative Economics In Quotes

RWN's Favorite Donald Rumsfeld Quotes

Great Patriotic Quotes

The Best Quotes From Margaret Thatcher's 'Statecraft'

The Best Quotes From Niccolo Machiavelli's 'The Prince'

Answering 10 Frequently Asked Questions About Iraq

There's A Quagmire In Iraq All Right

How Do We Define Victory In Iraq?

Iraq Is Another Vietnam? It's Not Even Close.

Debunking 8 Anti-War Myths About The Conflict In Iraq

If The World Treated WW2 Like the War On Terrorism

Confessions Of An Isolationist Wannabe

What's So Great About America?

The Questions Conspiracy Theorists Need To Ask Themselves

Rules Of Thumb

Is America Better Off Being Feared Or Loved?

The Two Year Old's Tantrum That Never Ends

The Conservative Thinking Behind The War On Terrorism

Some Of My Pet Peeves With The Mainstream Media

Stupid Debating Tricks -- 9 Of My Least Favorite Debate Tactics

The Third Annual Warblogger Awards For 2004

The 2003 Warblogger Awards

The 2002 Warblogger Awards (2002)

The Best Of The Blogosphere (Precursor To The Blogger Awards)

Humor: A Day In The Life Of A Puppy

Politically Correct Fairy Tales

If Planned Parenthood Wrote The Next Harry Potter Book

French Army to Market 'Ultimate Surrender' Video Game

For All The Libs Upset At Karl Rove For Telling It Like It Is...

RWN's 2nd Victor Davis Hanson Interview

The G. Gordon Liddy Interview

An Interview With Ann Coulter

10 Questions With Heather Mac Donald

An Interview With Milton Friedman

Sometimes, the quotes from the left are so good, that you don't have to do much more than let them speak for themselves. This is one of those times. So, enjoy these excerpts from a column called No Thanks to Thanksgiving by (big suprise here) journalism professor Robert Jensen at AlterNet:

"One indication of moral progress in the United States would be the replacement of Thanksgiving Day and its self-indulgent family feasting with a National Day of Atonement accompanied by a self-reflective collective fasting.

...Not only is the thought of such a change in this white-supremacist holiday impossible to imagine, but the very mention of the idea sends most Americans into apoplectic fits -- which speaks volumes about our historical hypocrisy and its relation to the contemporary politics of empire in the United States.

That the world's great powers achieved "greatness" through criminal brutality on a grand scale is not news, of course. That those same societies are reluctant to highlight this history of barbarism also is predictable.

...Simply put: Thanksgiving is the day when the dominant white culture (and, sadly, most of the rest of the non-white but non-indigenous population) celebrates the beginning of a genocide that was, in fact, blessed by the men we hold up as our heroic founding fathers."

Hope you enjoy your "self-indulgent family feasting" tomorrow on Genocide Day, you selfish Americans!

Hat tip to Polipundit for the story.

My radio alarm clock woke me this afternoon with the horrifying news that an “Air Stagnation Warning” would be in effect for the Greater Seattle Area throughout the entire holiday weekend.

Good Goddess! What terrible new ecological nightmare has Bush sprung on us now? Arsenic in the drinking water, global warming, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, and now “Air Stagnation?”

I certainly wasn’t going to take any chances with my health. Regretfully, I’d have to cancel my trip to my grandmother’s this Thanksgiving.

“Gosh, Larry, I don’t recall even inviting you,” my heartbroken Grandma told me over the phones minutes later. “As a matter of fact, that restraining order is still in effect.”

“Don’t try to talk me out of it,” I replied, “My mind is made up. You racist Nazis will just have to celebrate white man’s eradication of the indigenous peoples without me this year. It saddens me just as deeply as it does you.”

“Your grandfather is loading his shotgun,” said Grandma. “Ned! Put that thing away! He’s NOT coming!”

“…And when you’re sitting at the dinner table with all my inbred neocon cousins,” I continued, “remember to be thankful for all the kids who died in Iraq so you can have a full tank of gas. That’s blood on your hands, not cranberry sauce, you know.”

“I’m thankful for a lot of things,” Grandma snapped, “but you aren’t one of them.” The senile ol’ bat is sure getting cranky in her old age.

“No use begging, Gramma,” I told her. “I’m not going to ruin my lungs on a toxic pocket of stagnant air just so Bush’s big turkey buddies can line their feathery pockets. But if you can convince your beloved Shrub to ratify Kyoto, perhaps I’ll make it down for Winterfest next month.”

“Winterfest?” Grandma snorted. “You mean Christmas?”

“STOP FORCING YOUR RELIGION ON ME, YOU FUNDAMENTALIST KOOK!!!” I screeched and slammed the phone down, shattering my Nokia into a hundred pieces across the kitchen counter.

You try to be nice to these people in the spirit of the holidays and they start proselytizing like Pat Robertson at a transgendered abortionist’s same-sex wedding.

Right wing intolerance knows no bounds.

This content was used with the permission of BlameBush!

Now, why did we need a Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit again?

"The justification for a broad drug benefit was always flimsy. When Congress passed it, about three quarters of Medicare recipients already had drug coverage: the poorest had it through Medicaid; many retirees had it from their former employers; some had it through Medicare managed-care plans or policies (Medigap) they purchased. For Medicare recipients, all out-of-pocket costs—including drug costs—have remained remarkably stable. In 2001, they averaged 9.9 percent of income; the comparable figures for 1977, 1987 and 1996 are 8.1 percent, 9.4 percent and 8 percent. In 2002, 55 percent of Medicare recipients had out-of-pocket costs of less than $1,000; another 26 percent were under $2,499. Drug costs are oppressive mainly for a small minority of uninsured poorer recipients with large bills." -- Robert Samuelson

So, we didn't need really need a Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit in the first place. Then, why don't we dump the program or at least start over?

"...(T)here's a second political problem—outrage among conservatives over the new spending and the biggest expansion of Medicare since its creation in 1965. From 2005 to 2015, the drug benefit will cost $858 billion, estimates the Congressional Budget Office. Similarly, many conservatives ridicule the role of private insurance companies. "This is not a market-based system. It's central planning," says Robert Moffit of the Heritage Foundation. "You have [more] red tape and bureaucracy"—all the rules and subsidies that regulate the insurance plans.

Republicans deserve the backlash, because their motives were so blatantly political. President Bush embraced congressional demands for a big drug benefit from, among others, House Speaker Dennis Hastert. "He was pushing for a program that wouldn't just apply to poorer seniors [Bush's original plan]," says John Feehery, Hastert's former press secretary. "Medicare has always applied to all seniors. That's the political reality. They are the people who vote." To be fair, Democrats groveled with equal abandon; their drug plans were generally costlier." -- Robert Samuelson

Let's just call it like it is.

We're going to be adding $858 billion dollars to the deficit over the next decade and trillions more in the future, for a largely unnecessary government program, mainly so that the GOP could gain a minimal advantage over the Democrats in the 2004 elections and to be frank, we're not even sure the GOP got any political benefit out of the program at all.

The program doesn't officially take effect until 2006 so there's still, just barely, time to put this program off and retool, or better yet, dump it. That's exactly what should be done.

Israeli Warplanes Strike Targets In Lebanon

Pentagon Authorities Also Have Set A Series Of "Decision Points" During 2006 To Consider Further Force Cuts That, Under A "Moderately Optimistic" Scenario, Would Drop The Total Number Of Troops From More Than 150,000 Now To Fewer Than 100,000, Including 10 Combat Brigades, By The End Of The Year

The White House Has Dismissed Claims George Bush Was Talked Out Of Bombing Arab Television Station Al-Jazeera By UK Prime Minister Tony Blair

U.S. Ends North Korea Reactor Project

Some Iraqi Leaders Call For Pullout Timetable

An Arab-American College Student Was Convicted Tuesday Of Joining Al-Qaida And Plotting To Assassinate President Bush

CNN: The X In Front Of Cheney's Face Was A "Technical Malfunction"

The Vatican Says Homosexuals Who Are Sexually Active Or Support "Gay Culture" Are Unwelcome In The Priesthood

The Only Witness In A Death Row Case Recants Long After The Execution

Scalia Raps Gore For '00

US Greenhouse Gas Output Falls

US Sues Missouri Over Voters In 2004 Election (Free NYT Reg Req)

Brendan Miniter: John Murtha Unites The Republicans

Robert Samuelson: The Newest Medicare Benefit Is Confusing And Costly. It May Not Be Much Of A Political Boon To The People Who Created And Promoted It

Daniel Weintraub: Budget Forecast Looks Good For Arnold (Good Job Arnold)

John Stossel: Fast Food Justice Isn't Good Justice

Make Your Nominations For The 2005 Weblog Awards

World's Ugliest Dog Dies At 14

A Village Council In Pakistan Has Decreed That Five Young Women Should Be Abducted, Raped Or Killed For Refusing To Honour Childhood "Marriages"

Guwahati: Two People Chopped Onto Pieces For Allegedly Practicing Witchcraft

Website Of The Day: Tigerhawk

Hillary is widely assumed to be the Democrats "chosen one" for 2008, a candidate who will easily take the nomination and will be a tough opponent Republicans will be lucky to beat. But, as the days have worn on, I have become convinced that she is a significantly weaker candidate than most think. In fact, not only would I go so far as to say that she probably won't beat a moderate to strong GOP candidate in 2008, but I'm becoming less and less sure she will even be the nominee for the Democrats.

The latest blow to Hillary comes from the numbers in a Cook Political Report/RT Strategies national poll. Here's the key data and analysis:

"Among all adults, 42 percent chose the pro-Clinton option and 52 percent the anti-Clinton option. The numbers were almost identical among registered voters, with 42 percent choosing the pro-Clinton option and 51 percent the anti-Clinton option.

But as with McCain, the real story is in the party breakouts. A huge 66 percent of Democrats agreed with the pro-Clinton statement, with just 29 percent opting for the anti-Clinton package. But among independents, just 41 percent of independents chose the pro-Clinton case, with 51 percent favoring the anti-Clinton arguments. Not surprisingly, among Republicans, 76 percent opted for the anti-Clinton arguments and 18 percent opted for the pro-Clinton.

Among Democrats and those independents who usually vote in Democratic primaries, 60 percent chose the pro-Clinton package and 34 percent chose the anti-Clinton arguments, while among the hardcore Democratic primary voters, it was 65 percent pro-Clinton, 28 percent anti-Clinton. In Tarrance's eyes, Clinton has a "brand image problem." The negative brand of being "too liberal" is an enormous albatross around her neck among independents and Republicans.

Not surprisingly, there is a huge gender gap. Among all adults, women were virtually tied, 48 percent choosing the pro-Clinton case, 46 percent the anti-Clinton arguments. But among men, just 36 percent picked the pro-Clinton case, and 58 percent chose the anti-Clinton case. And the age differentials are interesting. Among those between 18 and 34 and those 50-64 (her age cohort, the older Baby Boomers), the pro- and anti Clinton cases are almost exactly even, but those 35-49 had 16 percentage points more anti-Clinton than pro, while among those 65 and older, they were 22 points more anti than pro."

I'd add to this that even though Hillary does well among Democrats, which bodes well for her chances in the primaries, the Michael Moore/Kos crowd is very lukewarm to Hillary. Although that's a loopy group of libs, they're also highly motivated, highly influential, and are likely to make up a disproportionate percentage of volunteers and financial contributors.

When you consider that Hillary isn't doing well with independents, isn't likely to carry any Southern states, isn't particularly charismatic, isn't doing well with independents, and according to this poll, is losing men by 22 points, you've got to wonder if we might see a Howard Dean like flame-out when Democratic voters have to actually decide if they want Hill as their candidate. Granted, Hillary and Dean are stylistically two very different types of politicians, but when Democratic voters concluded Dean was too much of a big mouth to win, they abandoned him. In Hillary's case, if they conclude she just has too much baggage to win, the same thing could happen.

Time will tell...

In Bizarro World, up is down, hamburgers eat people, and American church leaders don't fall to their knees to praise Islamofascist killers:

On October 20, 2005, the Lebanese press reported that a delegation from the Presbyterian Church USA, headed by Father Nihad Tu'meh and with Robert Worley as its spokesman, visited southern Lebanon at the invitation of Hizbullah, and met there with the terrorist organization's commander in southern Lebanon Nabil Qawuq. [...] Delegation spokesman Robert Worley said: "We do not wish to defend the U.S. administration. We all elected the Democratic Party against the Republican Party. Rest assured that we will return to the U.S. in order to continue our activity for peace, and we want to hear about the charity activities and the cultural and social activities organized by Hizbullah in south [Lebanon]. The Americans hear in the Western media that Hizbullah is a terrorist organization, and they do not hear any other opinion. They know nothing about the party's concern for the people of the south. We have suffered much pressure on the part of Jewish organizations in the U.S. because [of our help in] divesting corporations working with Israel. We want Jerusalem to be a united city, just as we encouraged the Palestinians and the Jews to work for peace, and we demanded that our administration adheres to this position." [emphasis added]

Sometimes, I wish I lived in Bizarro World.

This content was used with the permission of Daimnation!

When you think about the word "evil," what comes to mind? Maybe the Nazis, Stalin, Mao, or Saddam Hussein? How about serial killers or terrorists? Perhaps you even think of some comic book villain whose goal is to destroy the world!

On the other hand, if you're a liberal member of the Democratic Underground thinking about the word "evil," the first thing that probably comes to mind is Republicans -- and not just the big name Republicans either. The Republican minister? Evil! The Republican soldier? Evil! The Republicans reading RWN right now? Evil!

Just read this thread at the Democratic Underground called, "Are the Republicans EVIL?" and look at most, but not all, of the replies to the question posed in the title. There sure are lots of liberals who think all Republicans are evil people...

shenmue: Yes. Simple answer.

Yoda Yada: "Yes. They certainly do not advocate "Peace on Earth...Goodwill Toward Men". Now...that's not very Christian of them, is it

durrrty libby: I don't buy this excuse anymore “I know people who are registered "one issue only" Rethugs”

Sorry , that is not possible because, even if they disagree with much of the platform, they still vote it. Sort of like guilty by association.

So yes they are all evil, even if only by association. They are still enablers or really really dumb."

mitchum: Nor do I anyone who still identifies themselves as a republican is complicit in the chicanery and murderous actions

Skittles: short answer: YES. long answer: HELL F***ING YES

Oregonian: Yes. They are a cancer on the nation. The last five years have made that clear.

samsingh: yes and many more disgusting things. they are supported a mass murderer and all things that are against America.

Robertwf: Evil. without a doubt they are certified, guatenteed, and verified 100% evil

MrBenchley: Hannah Arendt wrote of the "banality of evil" in covring the trial of Eichmann...who thought of himself as a cog in a machine and focused on the trivia of his everyday routine, ignoring the evil that routine aided.

Something like that is going on with Republicans.

zonmoy: yes. they are evil men who worship an evil god.

C_U_L8R: Pure Concentrated Evil. false christians filled with hate and fear who desire to put the world in bondage and extract all the value and profit they can from their spoils of their pillage. May they all suffer unfortunate doom.

While these comments are ridiculous, they're also completely consistent with the sort of commentary you get from liberals like Michael Moore, Howard Dean, & Ted Rall. If you hate Republicans and everything they stand for, think Bush is Hitler, and run around claiming Republicans hate black people and want to poison the air and water, then you're in essence calling Republicans evil, even if you don't use the word. These comments at the DU are really nothing more than lefties who're taking the rhetoric of prominent liberals to its natural conclusion.

Do you want proof that our legal system can at times be nothing more than a big game of "lawsuit lottery" where juries arbitrarily give away absolutely insane amounts of corporate money to plaintiffs for the most spurious of reasons? Then look no further than this case

"A jury has ordered the Ford Motor Co. to pay more than $61 million to the family of a 17-year-old boy killed in a roll-over accident when his friend fell asleep while driving an Explorer.

Ford was liable in the accident because it sold a vehicle with poor handling and stability, the jury said Tuesday.

The company planned to appeal, a spokeswoman said Wednesday.

..."This tragic accident occurred when the driver of the vehicle fell asleep at the wheel while traveling at highway speeds. Real-world experience and testing show that the Explorer is a safe vehicle, consistently performing as well as or better than other vehicles in its class," Ford spokeswoman Karen Shaughnessy said.

Hall was reclining in the front passenger seat and wearing his seat belt when the Explorer rolled over four times on State Road 93 in Collier County near Naples in April 1997. He was ejected from the vehicle and died at the scene.

The driver of the 1996 Explorer, Melahn Parker, was charged with careless driving.

...The jury ordered Ford to pay the family $1.2 million in damages, and $60 million for the pain and suffering of Hall and his mother, Joan Hall-Edwards.

Ford was not ordered to pay punitive damages."

So let's get this straight: the parents are going to get $61.2 million from Ford because their son was riding in the car with someone who fell asleep and rolled over their Explorer?

Now, the first thought most people might have is why didn't they sue the driver, Melahn Parker? Because even though Melahn Parker is obviously the person at fault here, he/she doesn't have $61.2 million sitting around. That's why they sued Ford despite the fact that the company is no more responsible for their son's death than Ginsu would have been had Melahn Parker tripped and accidentally plunged a knife into his chest.

But some of you are probably thinking, "Big deal, they're sticking it to Ford. Ford has all the money in the world and if they have to give some of it to some family that lost their kid, that's OK."

Wrong answer, fella. That $61.2 million? Ford is going to pass that on to their customers. That means anyone who buys Ford products will pay the cost of this lawsuit and the cost of the numerous similar lawsuits that will be filed if this case is ultimately successful. That means a lot of average people will pay more so the Hall family can get an undeserved payday.

It's also possible that Ford won't be able to pass on all of these expenses to their customers, which may mean that they'll have to cut costs -- and $61.2 million pays a lot of salaries. Slick lawyers who bring these sort of cases always like to claim that they're "looking out for the little guy." Are they still "looking out for the little guy" if, let's say, 50 of Ford's employees are fired as a result of this lawsuit?

What we need to do is put an end to frivolous lawsuits and outrageous jury awards like this one via tort reform. In the end, that would do more to "look out for the little guy" than every lawyer in America is doing today.

Hat tip to Say Uncle & Ravenwood's Universe for the story.

"It should now be clear--if it wasn't already--that the Democratic Party is the party of withdrawal. Had John Kerry won the election last year, the U.S. would today be packing its bags and preparing to leave Iraq under something similar to the Murtha plan. The fallout from that would be disastrous. "Rapid reaction force" or not, Iraq would descend into political chaos and then perhaps fall under the power of a dictator. Maybe Saddam Hussein himself would return, though there is no shortage of Saddam wannabes in that part of the world. Following that, no U.S. president for a generation or maybe two would have the political muscle to topple a rogue regime anywhere. In the meantime, the U.S. would be on the run, while terrorists and the dictators who nurture them would have the upper hand." -- Brendan Miniter

CNN Marks Cheney: Network Flashes 'X' Over VP's Face During Live Speech

The Text Of Dick Cheney's Outstanding Speech On The War Yesterday

Hillary Clinton Publicly Disagrees With Murtha. Opposes Withdrawal

Hizbollah Fighters Killed In Raid On Israel

Hezbollah Rockets Blast Into Israel. Jewish Residents Hide In Bomb Shelters As Military Responds

Gingrich Sees Iran Threat To U.S. Like Nazi Germany

N. Korea Said To Aid Iran Missile Project

U.S., Europe Won't Push For Move On Iran Yet

Ambassador Says France 'Back To Normal'

Claim: Margaret Thatcher Threatened to Use Nukes During Falkland Islands War

Jim Dunnigan: Journalism Versus Reality In Iraq

Ralph Peters: How To Lose A War (Free NYP Reg Req)

Michael Barone: The Very Big Lie

Robert Novak: Counterattacking For Alito

John Fund: Pelosi's Poodles. "Blue Dog" Democrats Go To Obedience School

Mark Steyn: Listen To The Word On The 'Arab Street'

Designer Giving $215 Specialty Sneakers To Illegal Immigrants For Border Run

Teen's Mannequin Love-In

Humor: Detonation Is Temporary, Pride Is Forever

Humor: Al-Zarqawi, Wal-Mart Employee Of The Month

Website Of The Day: The Truth Laid Bear

"What is not legitimate -- and what I will again say is dishonest and reprehensible -- is the suggestion by some U. S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of his administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence.

Some of the most irresponsible comments have come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing the use of force against Saddam Hussein. These are elected officials who had access to the intelligence materials. They are known to have a high opinion of their own analytical capabilities. (Laughter.) And they were free to reach their own judgments based upon the evidence. They concluded, as the President and I had concluded, and as the previous administration had concluded, that Saddam Hussein was a threat. Available intelligence indicated that the dictator of Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and this judgment was shared by the intelligence agencies of many other nations, according to the bipartisan Silberman-Robb Commission. All of us understood, as well, that for more than a decade, the U.N. Security Council had demanded that Saddam Hussein make a full accounting of his weapons programs. The burden of proof was entirely on the dictator of Iraq -- not on the U.N. or the United States or anyone else. And he repeatedly refused to comply throughout the course of the decade.

Permit me to burden you with a bit more history: In August of 1998, the U.S. Congress passed a resolution urging President Clinton take "appropriate action" to compel Saddam to come into compliance with his obligations to the Security Council. Not a single senator voted no. Two months later, in October of '98 -- again, without a single dissenting vote in the United States Senate -- the Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act. It explicitly adopted as American policy supporting efforts to remove Saddam Hussein's regime from power and promoting an Iraqi democracy in its place. And just two months after signing the Iraq Liberation law, President Clinton ordered that Iraq be bombed in an effort to destroy facilities that he believed were connected to Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs.

By the time Congress voted to authorize force in late 2002, there was broad-based, bipartisan agreement that the time had come to enforce the legitimate demands of the international community. And our thinking was informed by what had happened to our country on the morning of September 11th, 2001. As the prime target of terrorists who have shown an ability to hit America and who wish to do so in spectacular fashion, we have a responsibility to do everything we can to keep terrible weapons out of the hands of these enemies. And we must hold to account regimes that could supply those weapons to terrorists in defiance of the civilized world. As the President has said, “Terrorists and terror states do not reveal … threats with fair notice, in formal declarations -- and responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide.”

In a post-9/11 world, the President and Congress of the United States declined to trust the word of a dictator who had a history of weapons of mass destruction programs, who actually used weapons of mass destruction against innocent civilians in his own country, who tried to assassinate a former President of the United States, who was routinely shooting at allied pilots trying to enforce no fly zones, who had excluded weapons inspectors, who had defied the demands of the international community, whose regime had been designated an official state sponsor of terror, and who had committed mass murder. Those are the facts.

Although our coalition has not found WMD stockpiles in Iraq, I repeat that we never had the burden of proof; Saddam Hussein did. We operated on the best available intelligence, gathered over a period of years from within a totalitarian society ruled by fear and secret police. We also had the experience of the first Gulf War -- when the intelligence community had seriously underestimated the extent and progress Saddam had made toward developing nuclear weapons.

Finally, according to the Duelfer report, Saddam Hussein wanted to preserve the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted. And we now know that the sanctions regime had lost its effectiveness and been totally undermined by Saddam Hussein’s successful effort to corrupt the Oil for Food program.

The flaws in the intelligence are plain enough in hindsight, but any suggestion that prewar information was distorted, hyped, or fabricated by the leader of the nation is utterly false. Senator John McCain put it best: “It is a lie to say that the President lied to the American people.”

American soldiers and Marines serving in Iraq go out every day into some of the most dangerous and unpredictable conditions. Meanwhile, back in the United States, a few politicians are suggesting these brave Americans were sent into battle for a deliberate falsehood. This is revisionism of the most corrupt and shameless variety. It has no place anywhere in American politics, much less in the United States Senate." -- Dick Cheney

Cheney's speech was superb and there was a lot of good material that wasn't quoted in this excerpt. So, if you want to read the whole thing.

It all started with a rant at the Democratic Underground about -- big surprise here -- how awful Bush and Republicans in general are. It was a long rant -- too long to repost -- and although the orignal poster, theWatcher, did say he felt Republicans should be dealt with "Legally And Peacefully," some of the other things he said seemed to suggest that wasn't what he had in mind:

"I am through trying to reason with these people, these sub-humans that run this country, and those that support their policies.

I'm through with holding out hope that somehow we can all co-exist and put our country back together.

This is WAR. I have no compassion, no understanding, no quarter, no parlay, no sympathy, and no use for ANY of these people."

"I can no longer peacefully co-exist with these people. They are accessories. They are co-conspirators, willful or ignorant, misguided or fearful, it matters not. They are ALL Guilty. I cannot have these people around me. I cannot have them in my personal space. I do not have children, but if I did I would not accept them being around my children.

They are filthy, degenerate, and LOST. And I no longer find their very existence acceptable. They are aiding in the destruction of this country, and as individuals they have absolutely NOTHING to contribute to the progression of the human species. NOTHING. I deeply hesitate to use the word "Useless Eaters", because of the negative connotations behind it, but I no longer care.

We are being MURDERED. This is GENOCIDE. It may be slow enough, and calculated enough to make the declaration of it as such absurd, but the intent is CLEAR. The PURPOSE is clear. THAT is what is being DONE."

The Duers took things from there and the paranoia and calls for violence continued throughout the thread (with a few dissenters of course). Interestingly enough, a DU moderator did delete multiple posts in the thread which suggests that the comments you're about to see are well within the bounds of what the Democratic Underground, one of the popular liberal websites on the net, considers acceptable discourse.

Enjoy the lunacy!

Check12: Absolutely! I have been saying for some time now that rich and the powerful in this country have already launched a class war with the rest of us.

They have been systematically lowering the standard of living for the middle class and folks below the poverty level. They allow legalized gambling and loan sharking, and drug pushing on TV. They have no respect for the environment or human dignity. They are scheming ways to take your home from you to bulldoze it to the ground and build yuppie condos at 3 million a pop. They want the masses poor and ignorant so they can be cannon fodder in their quest for global domination.

All that said, They will lose in the end, they always do. Like the french revolution, heads will roll!

Just think about this and cheer up.. 34%

readmylips: Brave American people or just passive?...Citizens in Yogoslavia took over the government, the palace and kicked Molosovich out. If we Americans are so brave, why are we so afraid of invading the People's house and arresting these criminals

opihimoimoi: WAIT for US...we are coming to join you....We of like feelings....we come to fight too. We bring our pikes and our poles, our knives and swords, our guns and torches, our hearts and souls....we fight this evil called Conservatism...

Alexodin: I was at the boiling point a long time ago. Back in January I prepared a safe room to hide GLBT people and Muslims and anybody else that needed to flee the fascism. I asked my relatives to seriously consider sending those not able to fight out of the country, elderly and young mothers. I was preparing. Then Schiavo hit and W**’s tumble began. I feel much better now but suspect that this bunch will not go peacefully and legally when their time comes.

I continue to employ passive resistance against them. I sense that civil unrest could develop around the 06 elections. This country is a tinder box of discontent and angst and the Repukes may want to incite violence so that they can declare martial law. I am watching for an “in your face move” such as a pardon or something more abhorrent. I stand with you, you do not stand alone. I have many relatives buried in Arlington. This is my country. I will defend the Constitution with my life if I must.

Seabiscuit: Agreed. And agreed. And agreed. So beyond hoping that they'll all kill themselves before they kill us, there is only one option left. And I can't say it without attracting the S.S. and getting this post taken down. But you've said it in so many words already.

nadinbrzezinski: We are quickly reaching that point war is the last option, at least open armed warfare, we have been at war for at least a decade now... don't be fooled, but we are reaching that point... and I will have to ask... are you ready?

AngryAmish: Bush is Hitler. we will cleanse our land.

stevietheman: Brilliant. I've often thought myself that without a peaceful remedy, and soon, we may just be months away from Revolution in America.

That's how sinister these people in stranglehold of our government are. They may not receive it, but they deserve a French-style Revolution, with actual heads rolling.

And we have to be clear who these reich-wing creeps get their power from: Oligarchs and big corporate CEOs from particular industries.

If we are to fight the most wicked of today's politicians, we must also fight the true source behind the wickedness, the resources that fuel and fund the wickedness. These politicians are merely superficial veneers to the truly problematic entities. If only they are removed, then those problematic entities find some sneaky way to come back at a later time. They always do.

So when we "take them down", *this time* we need to pull out the roots and soak the ground with permanent plant killer.

The true enemy is corporatism.

After the Kelo vs. New London case, in which the 4 liberal members of the Supreme Court (+ moderate Anthony Kennedy) gave the thumbs up to government house grabbers across the country, Americans were appalled. How in the world could members of the government be allowed to snatch your house just so they could hand it over to their developer buddies?

Fortunately, because of that outrage, not only have many states and Congress started taking steps to rein in the vast new powers for government that the Supreme Court incorrectly granted in Kelo, but the people involved in the original Kelo lawsuit may get to keep their homes. Read all about it right here:

"They have still not moved out. Not Susette Kelo. Not the Derys. Not Byron Athenian or Bill Von Winkle or the others.

Five months after the United States Supreme Court set off a national debate by ruling that the City of New London could seize their property through eminent domain to make way for new private development, no one has been forced to leave.

No bulldozers have arrived to level the last houses still standing, and none are expected soon.

Even though the holdouts lost their case, and the development that would displace them finally seems free to go forward, construction has not begun, and some elements of the project have been effectively paralyzed since the court ruling prompted a political outcry.

"I felt relaxed enough to get my checkbook out and put the new roof on," said Mr. Von Winkle, who owns three buildings with a total of 12 occupied apartments in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood by the Thames River, where the city was sued for claiming 15 properties through eminent domain.

Ms. Kelo, also among the handful of holdouts, said, "We still have hope that we'll get to keep our homes."

It is not that Ms. Kelo and the others have chained themselves to their property in a final dramatic defiance of the law.

Instead, wary of public disapproval and challenges from groups like the Institute for Justice, the law firm that represented the holdouts in court, the state and the city have halted plans to evict the remaining residents. Investors are concerned about building on land that some people consider a symbol of property rights. At the same time, contract disputes and financial uncertainty have delayed construction even in areas that have been cleared.

With so many complications, some people are unsure whether the city's initial vision for the property - a mix of housing, hotel and office space intended to transform part of its riverfront and bolster a declining tax base - is even realistic anymore.

"Winning took so long," said Mayor Jane L. Glover, "that the plan may not be as viable in 2005 or 2006 or 2007."

...The Connecticut General Assembly has asked cities to delay using eminent domain while it considers revising state law. Some city and state officials cite the difficulty in finding a balance between using eminent domain to rebuild blighted areas and preventing the potential for abuse that concerned Justice O'Connor.

...Amid all the debate, the Fort Trumbull project has stalled.

"This lawsuit put a chill on the development of the whole 90 acres, no doubt in my mind," said Thomas J. Londregan, the city's director of law. "Any developer knew that whatever they did would most likely be appealed to the courts."

Contentiousness led to stalemate and stumbles. At one point the city severed ties with the New London Development Corporation, only to reverse itself days later under pressure from the state. A key corporation executive was forced out.

...If any construction begins soon, it will happen away from the area where the holdouts remain, said Marty Jones, president of Corcoran Jennison, which has been under contract on the project since 1999.

"We need to have some positive things happening so that every lender and investor I go to doesn't say, 'I want to be 100 miles away from here,' " Ms. Jones said. "Eminent domain in Fort Trumbull has been on the front page of every newspaper in the country, and it has not put New London in the most positive light."

Despite losing in court, the holdouts have gained political leverage, largely through the public relations effort led by the Institute for Justice, Mr. Joplin said.

Scott G. Bullock, a lawyer for the Institute for Justice who argued for the resistant property owners before the Supreme Court, said, "We might have lost the battle, but the overall war is really going in our favor."

"What developer is going to want to build on land that was received through probably the most universally despised Supreme Court decision in decades?" Mr. Bullock asked.

Governor Rell has hired a mediator to meet with the holdouts. The goal is to see what, if any, financial terms, beyond the outdated appraised value they have been offered, might persuade them to leave.

"I'm on the road to search for the proverbial win-win," said the mediator, Robert R. Albright. "It's an extraordinarily complex situation. It's not a two-party situation by any means. I'm not sure I can honestly give you an option set or even fully describe the obstacles."

Oh, so now, after the negative publicity has gotten to be too much, they're looking for a "win-win." If they'd actually started out looking for a "win-win" situation in the first place instead of trying to use the raw power of government to force homeowners to bend to their will, they would have either settled this amicably, one way or the other, years ago.

That should be a lesson to members of government, at every level, all across the United States. But unfortunately, once the spotlight goes off, you find that government is an arrogant, stupid creature that rarely takes to heart the harsh lessons it learned under the withering glare of public scrutiny. Unfortunately, that's the nature of the beast...

Hat tip to Althouse for the story.

"Just set a time-table for our troops to come home and show the world that America is an unreliable ally with no stomach for a fight, no matter the stakes involved. Tell the world that deserting the South Vietnamese and fleeing from Somalia weren't anomalies — that's what Americans do.

While we're at it, let's just print up recruiting posters for the terrorists, informing the youth of the Middle East that Americans are cowards who can be attacked with impunity.

Whatever you do, don't talk about any possible consequences. Focus on the moment — and the next round of U.S. elections. Just make political points. After all, those dead American soldiers and Marines don't matter — they didn't go to Ivy League schools. (Besides, most would've voted Republican had they lived.)

America's security? Hah! As long as the upcoming elections show Democratic gains, let the terrorist threat explode. So what if hundreds of thousands of Middle Easterners might die in a regional war? So what if violent fundamentalism gets a shot of steroids? So what if we make Abu Musab al-Zarqawi the most successful Arab of the past 500 years?

For God's sake, don't talk about democracy in the Middle East. After all, democracy wasn't much fun for the Dems in 2000 or 2004. Why support it overseas, when it's been so disappointing at home?

Human rights? Oh, dear. Human rights are for rich white people who live in Malibu. Unless you can use the issue to whack Republicans. Otherwise, brown, black or yellow people can die by the millions. Dean, Reid & Pelosi, LLC, won't say, "Boo!"

You've got to understand, my fellow citizens: None of this matters. And you don't matter, either. All that matters is scoring political points. Let the world burn. Let the massacres run on. Let the terrorists acquire WMD. Just give the Bush administration a big black eye and we'll call that a win." -- Ralph Peters

ABC has the scoop (if you believe their anonymous sources) on the double super secret "torture techniques" of the CIA. If you have any doubt that these techniques are the "heavy guns" of the CIA interrogators, just look at the rigmarole they have to go through to even use them:

"When properly used, the techniques appear to be closely monitored and are signed off on in writing on a case-by-case, technique-by-technique basis, according to highly placed current and former intelligence officers involved in the program. In this way, they say, enhanced interrogations have been authorized for about a dozen high value al Qaeda targets — Khalid Sheik Mohammed among them. According to the sources, all of these have confessed, none of them has died, and all of them remain incarcerated.

...According to the sources, when an interrogator wishes to use a particular technique on a prisoner, the policy at the CIA is that each step of the interrogation process must be signed off at the highest level — by the deputy director for operations for the CIA. A cable must be sent and a reply received each time a progressively harsher technique is used. The described oversight appears tough but critics say it could be tougher. In reality, sources said, there are few known instances when an approval has not been granted. Still, even the toughest critics of the techniques say they are relatively well monitored and limited in use."

So, are you ready for the "torture" techniques that are so awful, so terrible, that they "must be" banned? Well, here they are:

"1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.

2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.

3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.

4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.

5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.

6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt."

There you go, folks. Those are the techniques that John McCain wants to ban and Andrew Sullivan gets so hysterical about.

Now, two things:

Number one, torture is smashing people's toes with a hammer, hooking electrodes up to their nether regions, and sticking bamboo shoots under the fingernails. It's not "making them cold" or giving them a "pink belly." While these interrogation techniques are undoubtedly unpleasant, none of them rises to the level of torture.

Number two, and this is the crucial one, what Americans have to ask themselves is if a high level Al-Qaeda detainee has information that may save American lives and the interrogators decide this is the best way to get it out of them, would we rather use these techniques or forego receiving the information?

Put another way, if we capture Osama Bin Laden and he knows the details of the next big terrorist attack on American soil, would you rather force him to give up the information via "Long Time Standing" or "Water Boarding" or would you rather the attack have a much better chance of succeeding?

That's what the misnamed "torture" debate is all about: is it more important to safeguard the lives of American citizens or is it more important not to make Al-Qaeda terrorists uncomfortable?

If we choose to use these interrogation techniques then, worst case scenario, somebody may go too far and it could cost a terrorist (or 3) their lives. On the other hand, if we don't use these interrogation techniques then, worst case scenario, it could lead to our missing the information needed to stop the next 9/11 or worse.

If the people who want these interrogation techniques banned think that putting these Al-Qaeda terrorists through this discomfort isn't worth saving countless American lives as a result, then they should plainly say so. But whether they do or don't, banning these techniques would be an enormous mistake that would needlessly put the safety and security of the American people at great risk.

Via Betsy's Page and A Constrained Vision, I learned that AFI is doing a show on the most inspirational movies ever made. Here's the description of what they're looking for:

"Movies that inspire with characters of vision and conviction who face adversity and often make a personal sacrifice for the greater good. Whether these movies end happily or not, they are ultimately triumphant--both filling audiences with hope and empowering them with the spirit of human potential."

Here's my personal list plus The Passion of The Christ, which deserves to be on there, even if it's very difficult to rate it against other movies.

10) Starship Troopers
9) Independence Day
8) Gladiator
7) Segeant York
6) Spider-Man 2
5) Saving Private Ryan
4) Spider-Man
3) Rocky
2) The Patriot
1) Braveheart

U.S. To Reduce Troop Levels In Iraq After December Elections

Al-Zarqawi's Jordan Family Renounces Him

200,000 Protest Terrorist Attacks In Jordan

Iran Votes To Block Nuclear Inspections

Israel's Sharon To Quit Likud, Form New Party For 2006 Poll

White House Doubts Al-Zarqawi Among Dead

Al Qaida Nabbed Near Mexican Border

Egypt Cracks Down On Islamists

A Brief History of a Long War (Iraq, 1990-2003)

GOP Forces Democrats To Record Position. House votes to reject withdrawal resolution 403-3.

Video: Jean Schmidt Saying "Cowards Cut And Run, But Marines Never Do" And The Democratic Reaction

Uniformed Mexicans With Guns, Bulldozer Seize Drug-Bust Truck From Border Patrol

Cowboys Take Up AK47s To Combat Drug Runners On Mexican Frontier

John Leo: We're All Victims

Francis Harris: Bin Laden Without The Filters

Sgt. Hook: A Taste Of Freedom

Mark Steyn: Senate Adopts Exit Strategy From Reality

Edwin J. Feulner: Drug Benefit Needs a Year On Sidelines (Excellent)

A Former Partner In OSM Talks About How The Company Was Created And Why He's Angry At Roger Simon

Roger Simon's Side Of The OSM Story

Another Former Partner, Marc Danziger, Talks About His Time With OSM

Amid ‘Black Think’ Pressure, Christine Byington Quits

Michelle Malkin: Just A Yellow Woman Doing A White Man's Job

San Fran Nan Finds Religion

Video: Two Chinese Guys Lip Sink To I Want It That Way (This Is Really Funny)

Website Of The Day: Panhandle Pundit