RWN returns Monday. Until then, enjoy the links below and consider this an open thread. Oh, and could you click on one ad for me? Any one ad? I'd appreciate it.

BitsBlog

Election Projection

Friends Of George Allen

Humor: Guest Commentary From Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi -- I Hate Email (Some Obscene Language)

The Indepundit

Iraqi PM Pick May End Impasse

Libertarian Leanings

Right Thinking Girl

The Nose On Your Face

The Strata-Sphere

The Washington Post: Wenyi Wang doesn't belong in jail (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Video: Mike Vallely Vs. 4 Random Guys (Very Obscene Lyrics In The Background)

Video: Who Can Elicit The Highest Pitched Scream From A Roommate By Waking Them Up With A Dead Animal Head?

WILLisms

The other stripper in the Duke Lacrosse case, the one who accompanied the accuser to the party, has opened her big yap to the press and completely destroyed any and all credibility she might have had:

At first, a stripper who performed at a Duke University lacrosse team party doubted the story of a colleague who told police she was dragged into a bathroom and raped. Now, Kim Roberts isn't so sure.

"I was not in the bathroom when it happened, so I can't say a rape occurred and I never will," Roberts told The Associated Press on Thursday in her first on-the-record interview. But after watching defense attorneys release photos of the accuser, and upset by the leaking of both dancers' criminal pasts, she said she has to "wonder about their character."

"In all honesty, I think they're guilty," she said. "And I can't say which ones are guilty … but somebody did something besides underage drinking. That's my honest-to-God impression."

...The attorneys claim Roberts at first told a member of the defense team that she did not believe the accuser's allegations. They say she has changed her story to gain favorable treatment in a criminal case against her. They note she also e-mailed a New York public relations firm, asking in her letter for advice on "how to spin this to my advantage."

...Roberts, 31, was arrested on March 22 eight days after the party on a probation violation from a 2001 conviction for embezzling $25,000 from a photofinishing company in Durham where she was a payroll specialist, according to documents obtained by the AP.

...On Monday, the same day a grand jury indicted lacrosse players Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty, a judge agreed to a change so that Roberts would no longer have to pay a 15 percent fee to a bonding agent. District Attorney Mike Nifong signed a document saying he would not oppose the change.

"It seems she is receiving very favorable financial treatment for what she is now saying," Thomas said.

Mark Simeon, Roberts' attorney, said the bond conditions were changed because Roberts is not considered a flight risk. Nifong, who hasn't spoken with reporters about the case in weeks, didn't return a call seeking comment.

...Although she would not talk extensively about the party, she confirmed some of what the other dancer told police including that the women initially left the party after one of the players threatened to sodomize the women with a broomstick.

The players' attorneys have said their clients were angry and demanded a refund when the women stopped dancing, but Roberts disputed that.

"They ripped themselves off when they started hollering about a broomstick," she said.

...Later, police received a 911 call from a woman complaining that she had been called racial slurs by white men gathered outside the home where the party took place. Roberts acknowledged that she made the call because she was angry.

...Roberts, like the accuser a divorced single mother who is black, took umbrage at the notion that she should not try to make something out of her experience. She's worried that once her name and criminal record are public, no one will want to hire her.

"Why shouldn't I profit from it?" she asked. "I didn't ask to be in this position … I would like to feed my daughter.

...Don't forget that they called me a d*mn n*gger," she said. "She (the accuser) was passed out in the car. She doesn't know what she was called. I was called that. I can never forget that."

So we have an angry embezzler/stripper who has already lied to the police, changed her mind about whether she thinks the victim was raped, and is trying to figure out how she can make money off being involved in a rape case. She's not a very charming lady, nor the sort of witness anyone is going to believe.

Add that to the cuts and bruises the accuser had when she arrived (which could suggest that any injuries she sustained suggestive of rape may have occurred before she showed up at the party), the strike-out on DNA, and the fact that the accused 100% positively identified a player as a rapist who was on his cell phone and off the premises in a cab during the time period in which the rape would have had to be occurring, and it looks more likely than ever that this case is a sham.

It's easy to imagine what could have happened. The Duke Lacrosse team calls in some strippers. The strippers arrive, go in, and some of these college jocks, who've never been noted for their grace and sensitivity, make some extremely obnoxious cracks. The strippers get offended, they don't actually end up getting naked, there's a dispute over whether they're getting paid, and next thing you know, the accuser, who's drunk or high, decides to pay them back by filing a rape charge.

Even after she sobers up and realizes she has done something incredibly dumb, she feels like she has to go forward because she has a record and doesn't want to get charged herself for making a false accusation. So, she picks out 3 random guys as her "rapists," and here we are today.

Is that what happened? We don't know, but it's becoming increasingly clear from the evidence that has already come to light that the story the "victim" is telling simply isn't true. You're not supposed to come right out and say that because we don't want women who have been raped to be reluctant to report the crime, but in this case, the damage being done to the reputations of these kids at Duke is so egregious and the chances that the "victim" is telling the truth is so remote that it's time for people to start calling it like they see it.

A pic of Condi Rice And Dick Cheney during "Chinese President Hu Jintao in Hu's first Oval Office visit."

Pic via ABC and AFP

This is kind of a shocker:

"Public concerns, including cock fighting, state funding for private schools, prehistoric finds in the Robledo Mountains, gubernatorial vetoes, preserving farm land, and support for the spaceport, were discussed Thursday by Gov. Bill Richardson during a town hall meeting at the Mesilla Valley Inn Best Western.

...Organ animal rights activist Bob Young told Richardson he was "disappointed" that the governor has not shown more support for legislation to ban cock fighting. New Mexico is one of the few states that has not banned cock fighting.

"I have not made up my mind on that," Richardson said.

The governor added the arguments for and against cock fighting have been strong on both sides. For the Legislature to be able to fully consider the issue it would need to be conducted during a 60-day session -- which is scheduled next year, from Jan. 16 until March 17."

There are still places in the United States where they allow COCK-FIGHTING? What is this, the 18th century?

Right now, there are banjo playing, toothless hillbillies who are married to their first cousins, who are probably talking to their friends and going:

"Have you heard they allow cock-fighting in New Mexico? Now, that's backwards!"

And Bill Richardson hasn't made up his mind because he needs to consider those "strong" pro-cock fighting arguments? You mean there are "strong" cock-fighting arguments that go beyond, "Sure, this is sick, but people have been doing it for a long-time?"

Also, since the governor seems reluctant to support a cock-fighting ban, does that mean there's a big "pro-cockfighting" crowd out there who's making him hesitant to act? Is there actually a cock-fighting lobby? Maybe they all throw in together with the lobbyists for people who sniff turpentine and sexually assault sheep to form one big block.

Look, I eat meat, I think hunting is great, and I once even wrote that...

"I don't believe animals have any rights other than those that man gives to them. If animals want their rights, let them have a revolution, overthrow the humans, and then they can write their own Constitution."

...but cock-fighting is a bridge too far, even for me. The sooner they put an end to this "sport" in New Mexico and in the rest of the US (I'm looking at you, Louisiana), the better.

Question: "The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that a High School Sophomore who wore a shirt to school that read, "Be Ashamed, Our School Embraced What God Has Condemned. Homosexuality is Shameful" is NOT constitutionally protected free speech. This coming in the same week that they discovered a constitutional right to be a bum and invalidated a Los Angeles ordinance making it a misdemeanor to sleep out in the street.

What the hell is in the water over there in San Francisco? It's ridiculous that I'd even have to ask this, but do you agree that the Constitution protects the right to be a homeless bum, but not the right to engage in speech that offends others?..." -- maledicta

Answer: I disagree with the The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals when it comes to the homeless. City streets are not apartments and the government has every right to stop people from trying to treat them as such.

In fact, as far as I'm concerned, the government has no obligation whatsoever to provide housing for the homeless. If the government CHOOSES to do it, as a response to their constituents, that's fine. But, the court was flat out wrong to rule that the 8th Amendment REQUIRES the government to provide shelter to the homeless or allow them to sleep on the sidewalks and if the ruling is appealed to the Supreme Court, I expect it to be overturned.

As a side note, I'm of the opinion that the best thing we could do for the chronically homeless (as opposed to a person who's temporarily homeless due to some misfortune) would be to arrest them and force them to go through a program to get their lives back on track.

The vast majority of the homeless are either alcoholics, junkies, or have severe mental problems and until they deal with those problems, they're going to be unable to take care of themselves. As a society, if we really had compassion for these people, we'd step in and force them to deal with the underlying problems that are causing them to be homeless so they can pull themselves together and live like human beings, instead of animals.

Unfortunately, we have liberal judges and lawyers who've blocked that sort of thing legally, presumably because we'd be infringing on people's "right" to take crack, pee in the street, and sleep under a bridge if we actually rounded up the chronically homeless and forced them to get help.

As far as the t-shirt goes, I agree with the court. If public schools have a right to force kids to wear uniforms, they have the right to create a uniform dress code and force kids to abide by it. Does that mean we'll always agree with their choices? No, but I still think they're within their rights to ban the shirt.

The reason why issues like this tend to be so controversial is because unfortunately, schools (and the courts) often take sides in issues they really shouldn't be involved in based on their political leanings. In this case, the school sanctioned a "pro-gay-rights event put on at the school by the Gay-Straight Alliance" and then when the student responded by wearing the shirt, the school said, "no, no, no." Is that fair? No, but I think the school should still have a right to do it. Here's something from Eugene Volokh that will help explain where I'm coming from on this one:

"The Supreme Court has indeed recognized that speech in K-12 public schools must be somewhat more restrictable than speech on the street. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1969) made clear that student speech might be restricted when it's likely to substantially disrupt the educational process. And sometimes speech that's hostile based on race, religion, or sexual orientation -- as well as speech that offends people for a wide variety of other reasons -- might indeed lead to substantial disruption.

But this is at least a facially viewpoint-neutral standard that potentially applies to speech on all perspectives, and doesn't categorically cast out certain student viewpoints from First Amendment protection. While the standard isn't without its problems, it is at least basically consistent with the First Amendment principle of "equality of status in the field of ideas."

You wouldn't think a debate over a simple t-shirt could be so complicated, but...

Question: "Should Jonathan Pollard be released?" -- D-Vega

Answer: For any of you who don't know, Jonathan Pollard is an American traitor who passed classified information about the United States to Israel. He's serving life in jail for his crime, but getting him released is something that's near and dear to the hearts of many Israelis.

Personally? Whether he was spying for an ally of the United States or not is irrelevant to me. Any American citizen who acts against the United States by spying for a foreign government is a traitor and as far as I'm concerned, they deserve to be hung. So since Pollard is already getting off light by being allowed to live, I don't think he should ever be allowed to walk free.

Question: "Patterico is publicizing this:

"Is an L.A. Times columnist leaving comments on the Internet under assumed “sock puppet” identities — identities which he pretends is someone other than himself?"

Have you ever seen this?

And if someone did it, do you consider it a bannable offense?" -N. O'Brain

Answer: The LA Times columnist in question is Michael Hiltzik and he did have "sock puppet identities."

In other words, he'd do a post and then he'd post under another name in the comments section and say something like:

"You're so smart, Michael! Super Models should want to have your baby and they should put your face on Mt. Rushmore!"

...or, if someone criticized him, it would be something like:

"How can anyone disagree with Michael Hiltzik? He's the smartest man on earth and you're a big poop-head!"

You get the idea.

After Patterico did some sleuthing and outed him, Hiltzik admitted what he was doing on his LA Times blog and was suspended:

"The Times has suspended Michael Hiltzik’s Golden State blog on latimes.com. Hiltzik admitted Thursday that he posted items on the paper’s website, and on other websites, under names other than his own. That is a violation of The Times ethics guidelines, which requires editors and reporters to identify themselves when dealing with the public. The policy applies to both the print and online editions of the newspaper. The Times is investigating the postings."

So, is this a serious ethics violation? Does it mean Hiltzik is another Jayson Blair? Should the LA Times fire him?

No.

But since that's the case, then what does this mean? It means Hiltzik is an insecure dork and this is a good time to chuckle heartily at his expense. I mean the guy has a Pulitzer and yet he still feels compelled to create identities to defend himself in the comments section of other blogs! Talk about thin skinned! It's just pitiful!

As far as this goes on RWN, there have been people here posting under multiple identities. Sometimes I'll notice that two IPs for two different commenters are the same. Other times I'll ban someone and they'll send me an email saying they were just having fun with that account and don't want their regular, "real" account banned. Other times, I've managed to figure out that people who are banned are getting on different computers or using programs to hide their real IPs so that they can post again on RWN after they get banned.

Do I ban people if I catch them coming back after they were banned or creating identities and arguing with each other? Yes, I do.

Question: "Is it listed ANYWHERE how many enemy casualties our troops have caused? I hear the death toll of OUR troops all the time, I'd very much like to see the ratio between them and us." -- daytrip

Answer: As Paul T. mentioned in the comments section, the Brookings Institution has some numbers, but they don't look too much more than "guesstimates" that may or may not be wildly off in either direction.

The reason we don't have better numbers on enemy casualties is twofold.

First of all, it's just extremely difficult to estimate. Oftentimes, there's just no way for soldiers to definitely say how many people they killed in a firefight and since you have enemies who are often dressed as civilians, blown to bits, covered with rubble, who crawl off to die, who are carried off, who were injured, but not killed, etc., etc., it's often not really possible to get an accurate count even after the fact.

Secondly, since the mainstream media is so hostile to the troops, the military is just extremely reluctant to try to count scalps when they know they will get it wrong a lot. That's because every time they made a mistake, the media would accuse them of lying and attempting to deliberately inflate the enemy body count.

Since that is the case, the military is better off avoiding body counts.

Question: "With Venezuela rattling around, Iran looking to become an issue, and the 06 hurricane season right around the corner, do you envision 70s style gas lines?" -- jasamc

Answer: Prices may continue to go up, but we're not going to have 70's style gas lines unless we make the same mistake they made in the 70's -- instituting price controls. Because the government artificially increased demand by forcing prices to be lower than the market dictated, demand outstripped supply and you ended up with lines to buy gas.

So no price controls equals no gas lines.

*** Update #1 ***: Naturally, on the very day that I posted about what causes gas lines, there was a freaky, once in a lifetime exception to the rule that undercut what I was saying:

"As if rising prices weren't enough, the tanks have run dry at some Philadelphia-area service stations in the last few days as the refining industry stumbles through a change in the formulation of gasoline.

Oil refiners are phasing out a petrochemical that makes gasoline burn cleaner but which also has been found to contaminate groundwater. Refiners are switching to corn-based ethanol.

The changeover is creating supply-chain bottlenecks because much work must be done at fuel terminals and service stations to handle ethanol."

This is a temporary problem, confined to a particular area and if you'll notice, it's also caused by monkeying with the market, but on the supply side in this case:

"The conversion to ethanol was prompted by the federal Energy Policy Act of 2005, which left refiners vulnerable to groundwater contamination suits and mandated greater use of renewable fuels. The use of ethanol forced gasoline retailers to clean their tanks, remove all water from them and install extremely fine filters on their pumps."

In a prosperous country like the US, if you see a long-term shortage of any product that is desired by the public, government interference with the market is almost always at the root of the problem.

Domestic

'Coyotes' Openly Trolling for Clients In Plain View Of Mexican Law Enforcement

The Majority Of Illegals Captured In The Big Raid ARE NOT Going To Be Deported.

Feds Warn Companies Using Illegal Workers

Fox Poll: Bush Approval At 33%. Approval Rate For Congress: 25%

Why A Strong Economy Is No GOP Asset

Alberto Gonzales Gives Child Porn 'Wake-Up Call'

Is An L.A. Times Columnist Leaving Comments On The Internet Under Assumed “Sock Puppet” Identities — Identities Which He Pretends Is Someone Other Than Himself? Yes And He's Been Busted!

Foreign

Bowing To Intense Pressure, Prime Minister Ibrahim Al-Jaafari Agreed Thursday To Allow Shiite Lawmakers To Find Someone Else To Head The New Government (That's Big News. He Was The Big Impediment To Forming An Iraqi Government)

Protestor Mars Hu Visit

Iran Still Years Away From Having Nukes: US Intelligence Chief

No Proof Of Secret C.I.A. Prisons, European Antiterror Chief Says (The New York Times Reg Req)

Columns

An Interview With Travis Rowley On His Book "Out Of Ivy: How A Liberal Ivy Created A Committed Conservative"

The Washington Examiner: No Place For ‘Reconquista’

Jonah Goldberg: Seeing Red Over 'Green Scare' (Free LA Times Reg Req)

Peggy Noonan: Learn To Bend, Mr. Bush. You Won't Break

Left-Overs

University Rebuffs 'Gay' Profs, Warns Librarian Not To Retaliate. Christian Staffer Called 'Sexual Harasser' For Recommending 'Marketing Of Evil'

Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, R-Mo Claims To Be Puzzled By Obscenity In Letter

Sienna Miller Gets Death Threats From Muslims. U.S.-Born Actress Warned 'She Will Be Sorry' Unless She Pulls Out Of Film

Analysis Of Weblog Comments

Right Wing Fascist Bloggers Are Really Mechanics in Pajamas!

Website Of The Day: Patterico's Pontifications

Today will be Q&A Friday #38 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.

Ask away!

I want to post something here about an old poll, one that I discussed on RWN back in 2002, because I think it highlights an issue that isn't getting enough attention in the illegal immigration debate:

"Nearly three out of five Mexicans believe there should be no border control for Mexican nationals crossing into the United States, while two-thirds of U.S. citizens do not believe illegal aliens in the country should be granted amnesty, a poll released Tuesday stated.

The poll was commissioned by Americans for Immigration Control Inc., which issued a statement saying the poll results show there is little support among Americans for a relaxation of border crossing policies between the United States and Mexico.

The poll was conducted by Zogby International. The group, over the period May 25-26, asked a series of questions of 801 Mexicans. A total of 1,015 U.S. citizens were questioned between May 28-30. The data have a margin of error of 3.5 percent.

Asked if they believed the U.S. Southwest rightfully belonged to Mexico, 58 percent of respondents in Mexico said it did, while 28 percent disagreed. A similar number -- 57 percent -- stated agreement with the position that Mexicans have the right to enter the United States without U.S. permission. A total of 35 percent disagreed."

So, folks, do you think it's really safe for our country to have millions of Mexican illegal immigrants in the US, who don't respect our laws, and who believe that we have no right to make them leave because the land they're on actually belongs to them?

You've already got groups like MEChA & the Mexica Movement, which have been active in these illegal alien rallies, saying that they really own America and that Americans are living on, "stolen land." People have been trying to portray these groups as, "fringe movements," but according to this poll, their views represent what the majority of Mexicans believe.

I understand why most people don't take this seriously -- yet. We haven't seen any political violence on a large scale that has come out of the illegal immigration movement -- yet. Also, the idea of Mexicans retaking the Southwest seems to be a ridiculous, far fetched idea.

But, that brings to mind something once written by Margaret Thatcher:

"It is one of the great weaknesses of reasonable men and women that they imagine that projects which fly in the face of commonsense are not serious or being seriously undertaken."

Folks, there are people and groups out there, in this country, who, ridiculous as it may seem, "seriously" believe that they can take over the Southwestern United States and, given all the violent conflicts that have occurred over land throughout history, it's very easy to see how that could potentially lead to political violence and terrorism against Americans in the future.

So, does this mean we should flip out and start treating every illegal alien working on a construction site or picking strawberries like he's a potential Osama Bin Laden? No, not at all.

But, as we all now know in this post 9/11 world, a small number of people with bad intentions can cause a cataclysmic amount of death and destruction in a free and open country. And when you have millions and millions of illegal immigrants who've already shown that they don't respect our laws, here from a country where 58% of the people believe Americans are living on "stolen land," it's not hard to see the potential threat to America down the road, even if it hasn't manifested as of yet.

Although there is much debate about how long we have until Iran has a functional nuclear weapon, it's entirely possible that President Bush, in months, not years, may have to decide whether to bomb the Iranians in order to set their program back or whether to allow them to acquire nuclear weapons.

If we do have to bomb, we can be sure that Iran will retaliate and that we will have minimal international support. Because of this, most liberals seem to be coming down in favor of allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons. Some of them, like Thomas Friedman, admit that -- most others don't yet, but it does appear to be becoming the default liberal position.

Since that's the case, if and when the time comes, you can expect liberals to come up with every excuse in the book to forestall military action. That's not to say there are no good arguments against bombing Iran. There certainly are a few. However, there are also some excellent reasons to do anything it takes to stop the Iranians from acquiring nukes -- starting with the fact that the government of that country is full of dangerous, crazy, terrorist supporting Islamo-fascists who are just as implaccably hostile to America and our allies in Israel as Osama Bin Laden.

Here are a few quotes to show you what I mean. As you read these quotations, consider whether America would be more or less safe if these people had access to nuclear bombs.

"You should make the world understand that Israel is the oppressor and that Israel must be destroyed." -- Ayatollah Ali Meshkini

"The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm." -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"Very soon, this stain of disgrace [i.e. Israel] will be purged from the center of the Islamic world – and this is attainable." -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map." -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"They have fabricated a legend under the name 'Massacre of the Jews', and they hold it higher than God himself, religion itself and the prophets themselves." -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"(I)f someone were to deny the myth of the Jews' massacre, all the Zionist mouthpieces and the governments subservient to the Zionists tear their larynxes and scream against the person as much as they can." -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in its possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world" -- Former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani

"Thanks to the blood of the martyrs, a new Islamic revolution has arisen and the Islamic revolution of 1384 [the current Iranian year] will, if God wills, cut off the roots of injustice in the world. The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world." -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"Iran's hardline spiritual leaders have issued an unprecedented new fatwa, or holy order, sanctioning the use of atomic weapons against its enemies.

In yet another sign of Teheran's stiffening resolve on the nuclear issue, influential Muslim clerics have for the first time questioned the theocracy's traditional stance that Sharia law forbade the use of nuclear weapons.

One senior mullah has now said it is "only natural" to have nuclear bombs as a "countermeasure" against other nuclear powers, thought to be a reference to America and Israel.

The pronouncement is particularly worrying because it has come from Mohsen Gharavian, a disciple of the ultra-conservative Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi, who is widely regarded as the cleric closest to Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad." -- The Telegraph

"After his U.N. speech in September, Ahmadinejad was caught on videotape telling a cleric that during the speech an aura, a halo, appeared around his head right on the podium of the General Assembly. "I felt the atmosphere suddenly change. And for those 27 or 28 minutes, the leaders of the world did not blink. . . . It seemed as if a hand was holding them there, and it opened their eyes to receive the message from the Islamic Republic." -- Charles Krauthammer on Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad

"To shouts of “Death to America,” Iran’s parliament unanimously approved the outline of a bill Sunday that would require the government to resume uranium enrichment, legislation likely to deepen an international dispute over Iran’s nuclear activities." -- Associated Press Via Little Green Footballs

"Relations between the west and the hardline Iranian regime are set to worsen after a Tehran-based group claimed yesterday it was trying to recruit Iranians and other Muslims in Britain to carry out suicide bombings against Israel.

The Committee for the Commemoration of Martyrs of the Global Islamic Campaign, which claims to be independent but has the backing of the regime, said it is targeting potential recruits in Britain because of the relative ease with which UK passport-holders can enter Israel." -- The Guardian

"The first target is Israel. For us, that is the battlefield. All the Jews are targets, whether military or civilian. It's our land and they are in the wrong place. It's their duty to pay attention to safety of their own families and move them away from the battlefield." -- Mohammad Samadi, spokesman for The Committee for the Commemoration of Martyrs of the Global Islamic Campaign

"Some 10,000 people have registered their names to carry out martyrdom operations on our defined targets. Our targets are mainly the occupying American and British forces in the holy Iraqi cities, all the Zionists in Palestine, and Salman Rushdie." -- Mohammad Samadi, spokesman for The Committee for the Commemoration of Martyrs of the Global Islamic Campaign

"The world of Islam has been mobilized against America for the past 25 years. The peoples call, "death to America." Who used to say "death to America?" Who, besides the Islamic Republic and the Iranian people, used to say this? Today, everyone says this." -- Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

"God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism" -- President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

I'm scheduled to be on the Tammy Bruce show today at 2 PM EST. It'll be a short, 10 minute long segment and you can listen to it here.

*** Update #1***: Tammy and I spent the segment talking about Iran and illegal immigration. Overall, I think it went well and I'd like to thank Tammy for having me on again and plugging RWN so hard.

On the one hand, it's great to see this happening:

Immigration agents arrested seven executives and hundreds of employees of a manufacturer of crates and pallets Wednesday as part of a crackdown on employers of illegal workers.

Authorities raided offices and plants of IFCO Systems in at least eight states, the culmination of a yearlong criminal investigation, law enforcement officials said.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrested seven current and former IFCO Systems managers on charges they conspired to transport, harbor and encourage illegal workers to reside in the United States for commercial advantage and private financial gain, said Glenn T. Suddaby, the chief federal prosecutor in Albany, N.Y., where some arrests were made.

...Raids took place at several locations in upstate New York and in Biglerville, Pa.; Charlotte, N.C.; Cincinnati, Houston, Phoenix, Richmond, Va., and Westborough, Mass.

"ICE has no tolerance for corporate officers who harbor illegal aliens for their work force. Today's nationwide enforcement actions show how we will use all our investigative tools to bring these individuals to justice, no matter how large or small their company," said ICE chief Julie Myers.

...The current and former IFCO Systems managers arrested were identified by Suddaby as: Michael Ames, 44, Shrewsbury, Mass.; Robert Belvin, 43, Clifton Park, N.Y.; Abelino Chicas, 40, Houston; Scott Dodge, 43, Albany; William Hoskins, 29, Cincinnati; James Rice, 36, Houston, and Dario Salzano, 36, Amsterdam, N.Y."

On the other hand, since we can do this under the current laws, why aren't we seeing it 3 or 4 times a week? I mean let's face it, folks, if "ICE actually busts a lot of illegal immigrants and their employers" is a big story, it's a pretty good indication that ICE isn't getting the job done. The very fact that this story is making big news -- it's at the top of the page on Drudge right now -- just goes to show you that there is an immigration enforcement problem in this country.

If ICE actually started doing these sorts of raids regularly and started arresting business owners, guess what? Most businesses would stop hiring "undocumented workers" because most business owners aren't willing to risk jail time to make a few extra bucks -- and if the illegals couldn't get jobs, most of them would go home. In other words, if ICE did big, splashy raids like this 3 times a week for 6 months, a lot of our illegal alien problem would start to evaporate as the illegals self-deported after not being able to find work.

Want to get things started? Let's see these IFCO Systems managers on TV, doing perp walks right up to the jailhouse doors so that all the other business owners out there hiring illegals can see it and imagine themselves in their place. Then let's start repeating this process all over America at these crooked businesses that are knowingly putting illegals on the payroll. The sooner we crack down on these scofflaw illegals and the businesses that hire them, the better.

"The problem plaguing new energy developments is no longer NIMBYism, the "Not-In-My-Back-Yard" movement. The problem now, as one wind-power executive puts it, is BANANAism: "Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything." The anti-wind brigade, fierce though it is, pales beside the opposition to liquid natural gas terminals, and would fade entirely beside the mass movement that will oppose a new nuclear power plant. Indeed, the founders of Cape Wind say they embarked on the project in part because public antipathy prevents most other utility investments in New England.

Still, energy projects don't even have to be viable to spark opposition: Already, there are activists gearing up to fight the nascent biofuel industry, on the grounds that fields of switch grass or cornstalks needed to produce ethanol will replace rainforests and bucolic country landscapes. Soon the nonexistent "hydrogen economy" will doubtless be under attack as well. There's a lot of earnest, even bipartisan talk nowadays about the need for clean, emissions-free energy. But are we really ready, politically, to build any new energy sources at all?" -- Anne Applebaum

A growing movement of retired and active-duty U.S. military officers, angry at the mismanagement, arrogance and even deception that have hampered U.S. efforts to secure peace and democracy in Iraq, have begun quietly calling for the resignation of top leaders they blame for the difficulties.

“I believe that it’s time for them to step down,” said one unnamed retired three-star general. “The editors of The New York Times and Washington Post and the news producers at CNN, CBS, NBC and ABC should resign effective immediately.”

“They’ve formed a tight cabal that focuses only on news that reinforces their neo-journ ideology,” said another unnamed general. “Despite the urgent need for actual reporting from Iraq, they have failed to put enough boots on the ground in country.”

“As civilians, they make editorial decisions without any understanding of history or military strategy,” said another retired officer, “and they’re trying to run the war coverage from hotels in the cloister of the Green Zone, without consulting with our leaders and troops on the frontlines.”

The generals who all requested anonymity, in the words of one, “so I won’t be bothered by a bunch of calls from reporters writing redundant stories,” said the leading news media gatekeepers should be replaced by “more centrist voices” who will be honest with America, and not blindly devoted “advancing the neo-journ agenda.”

“We’d like to see leaders in there who will cover the Iraq story as Americans, or at least as those who believe in liberty,” said one active-duty general who has worked closely with reporters and editors.

Meanwhile, New York Times Publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. brushed off what he called “the incessant drumbeat of negativity” from opponents of his administration.

“You can’t relieve your top commanders while your side is winning,” Mr. Sulzberger said. “Frankly, the Pentagon doesn’t direct enough attention to the car bombings, sectarian strife and rumblings of civil war which show that we’re making progress in Iraq every day.”

This satire was used with the permission of Scrappleface.

From Michelle Malkin's Website:

"You know who you all are.

And if you think I'm going to stop blogging/writing/making a living because you've plastered my family's private home address, phone numbers, and photos and maps of my neighborhood all over the Internet to further your manufactured outrage and pathetic coddling of a bunch of lying, anti-troops punks at UC Santa Cruz...

...you better think again."

So, what do we have here? Michelle Malkin, among other people, simply posted numbers and email addresses that were proudly included in a press release that was freely available to anyone who went to SAW's website.

Then, at some point, some of those members of SAW received threatening emails and phone calls. Did they get them from Michelle's blog? Who knows? It's entirely possible that after the story got some exposure, people simply went to SAW's website and got the phone numbers and email addresses there. After all, they were freely available to the general public.

But, because the left side of the blogosphere is so eaten up with hate for conservatives, particularly conservative minorities, many of them lied and claimed that Michelle had posted personal numbers on her website and was responsible for the death threats leveled at these SAW.

As a result, Michelle had liberals sending her some of the most vulgar and racist emails imaginable. But, even that wasn't enough for the left. Now, you've got liberals literally trying to get Michelle and her family harassed or attacked. I guess a lot of liberals figure, "If we can't beat you, we'll give out your home address and hope some nutjob attacks your kids."

This incident just confirms what we already knew: that these days, there are a lot of sick and depraved liberals out there.

*** Update #1 ***: More from Protein Wisdom & Polipundit.

Domestic

McClellan Leaves White House Press Office

Fox News' Tony Snow Among Possible White House Spokesman Candidates

Karl Rove to Lose Policy Portfolio

BullDogPundit: The Latest On The Duke Rape Case From A Prosecutor

Attorneys: Photos Will Exonerate Players

Hundreds Nabbed In Immigration Raid. Executives, Workers Arrested In Nationwide Move Against Pallet Make (Applause)

Minuteman Leader Relays Ultimatum To Bush: Build Fence Along Border Or We Will

An Appeals Court Wednesday Upheld A Judge's Ruling Throwing Out A Felony Conspiracy Charge Against Former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (One Trumped Up Phony Charge Down, Two To Go)

Seven Months Before The Midterm Elections, Senate Democrats Have $32.1 Million And Maintain A 2-To-1 Advantage Over Their GOP Counterparts

U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn Isn't Naming Names, But He Expects Six Congressmen And A Fellow Senator Will Go To Jail

Liberals Post Michelle Malkin's "Private Home Address, Phone Numbers, And Photos And Maps Of My Neighborhood All Over The Internet" (Disgusting, But Not Surprising)

Foreign

Iranian Group Seeks British Suicide Bombers

Chinese Man Admits Plot To Import Missiles To US

Palestinian: 'Even Though I Am Suffering, My Suicide Bomber Son Was A Hero'

Merkel Bum Snaps Anger German Press (Nudity)

Britain: Muslim Students 'Being Taught To Despise Unbelievers As Filth'

A Lesson In Immigration. Guest Worker Experiments Transformed Europe

Columns

Jim Geraghty: The Good Guys Whack Another Al-Qaeda Leader; Nobody Notices

Mohammed In Iraq: Kill Us, But You Won't Enslave Us

Ann Coulter: Lie Down With Strippers, Wake Up With Pleas

Rabbi Aryeh Spero: Immigration Debate Is Symptomatic Of Society Unable To Say 'No'

Hermain Cain: Illegal Entitlement Is Not An Option

Thomas Sowell: Why Not Everybody?

James Lileks: Please Understand -- They Aren't Civilized, And Dialogue Won't Cut It

Left-Overs

Killer Of Carjacker In Cobb Is Cleared (Applause)

Teacher Reads 2nd-Graders Story About 'Gay' Wedding. Since Same-Sex Marriage Is Legal In State, Administrator Says No Parent Ok Needed

Photographs Of Female Israeli Soldiers

Humor: Scott McClellan's Out - Mr. Stick Figure's In

Website of The Day: Tigerhawk

Just to do something a little different, I thought I'd share my "D-list" bookmarks with you. That's the bookmarks folder for non-political blogs that I hit for entertainment's sake, as opposed to websites like Mapquest that I go to get information.

Before you check out any of these websites, do keep in mind that some of them have obscene language and links. Otherwise, enjoy these websites!

CollegeHumor

Darwin Awards

Dawn Yang's Blog (ClapBangKiss)

Diary Of A Carny

Digg

Ernie's House Of Whoop @ss (Some Nudity)

Inbox Junkies

Inside Pulse (Wrestling)

Madville

Newgrounds

OnlineGamesHQ

Scott's Blog of Doom

Something Awful

The Best Page In the Universe

Transcended

Wicked Small Games

Xiaxue

Here are a few tips that will help make life easier for bloggers over the long run:

1) If you have a comments section, make sure people have to register to use it and run it with an iron fist. If you don't keep on top of your comments section, it can be turned into a cesspool in a hurry and you'll be blamed for it.

2) If you ban someone from commenting on your blog, don't turn him/her back on, don't respond to his emails, and don't acknowledge the fact that he's been banned on your blog. I say that because I've found that many of the people who get out of control in the comments section simply enjoy being annoying and causing problems. In other words, as odd as this may sound to well-adjusted people, they enjoy any sort of attention, even negative attention, and giving it to them only encourages them to hang around.

3) Don't ever tell your readers where you work. If you do, don't be surprised if some angry wacko gets in touch with your boss at some point and accuses you of God knows what.

4) Don't send out emails from your work address or post in another blog's comment section from work. A work address tells people where you work right off. An IP address, which the administrator of the comments section can see, can be run through Arin and may tell them the same thing.

5) Have an unregistered phone number and don't mention where you live unless it's a large area. It helps keep the crazies away.

6) Don't post other people's email addresses or phone numbers on your blog and ask your readers to contact them because if your readers do something loopy, you'll be blamed. Instead, link to the contact information. That way, if there are any problems, it makes it harder to tie them back to you.

7) Don't post the email addresses or IPs of people who send hate mail to you. That's not to spare them trouble, it's to spare you trouble if one of your readers sends them objectionable emails or tries to launch some sort of attack at their IP.

8) If a small blog says something nasty about you, don't get all upset and think you have to respond to them. As often as not, by hammering them, you're just sending traffic their way and getting people interested in what they have to say. Nobody may pay much attention to a tiny blogger saying bad things about you, but lots of people will tune in for a "blog feud."

9) Don't write about anything on your blog that you couldn't deal with people in the "real world" finding out about because eventually, one way or the other, it will probably come to light.

10) Once a post is published and other bloggers run across it, you're going to have to live with the consequences. So, don't blog angry. If you do write a post while you're angry, wait until you cool off, and then go back and edit it to make it less scathing.

Up until this point, I've avoided writing about the Duke Lacrosse team's rape case because I wasn't really sure what to think. However, today I'm....well...still, not sure what to think.

I can tell you that it has been handled horrendously. The Duke Lacrosse team had their season canceled, the coach resigned, and you had 46 kids treated like, "potential rapists," even though, worst case scenario, 43 of them did nothing wrong.

Furthermore, I find the way that racial and feminist agendas have been inserted into this case to be nauseating. There seems to be more than a few people who want to declare these kids guilty based on nothing more than the fact that they're white, male, and perceived as being wealthy because they go to Duke.

That's particularly obnoxious in this instance because there are some very fishy things about this case. You have an exotic dancer with a record, who was drunk as a skunk and arrived injured and bleeding at a party....and let's just stop there. Doesn't that set off some alarm bells? How did she get injured in the first place? Even if she was raped, given that she was scuffed up, isn't it entirely possible that it occurred before the party?

Furthermore, the DA must have been convinced that he had DNA from one or all of the rapists because he made a big, hairy deal out of having all the players take DNA tests, which then came back negative.

Moreover, we'll have to see how this plays out, but apparently there are multiple lawyers claiming that one or maybe even both of the current defendants weren't even at the party when the victim was supposedly raped.

So, does that mean this is Tawana Brawley, Part Two? Not necessarily. The DA has indicted two people and if he has any integrity at all, then surely he has a lot more evidence against these players than what has been revealed publicly at this point. That's why no one should rush to judgment yet, despite the facts that have come to light so far.

That being said, let me add that I think this case has shown that it's time for people accused of rape to be given the same courtesy as victims of rape when it comes to having their names left out of the papers. After all, it's innocent until proven guilty and if the victims are going to be shielded from public scrutiny, the accused should be shielded as well, unless they're found guilty in a court of law. If the purpose here is to protect innocent people from being stigmatized, then certainly that's how it should work.

In the end, what it all comes down to here is that if these guys are guilty of rape, let's hope that they go to prison for a long, long time. If this turns out to be a false accusation, then let's hope the exotic dancer is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But, whatever the ultimate outcome of this case is, it should lead to a lot of soul searching about the way rape cases are handled in this country.

*** Update #1 ***: Correction: I said the coach was fired in the original post. He actually resigned.

*** Update #2 ***: OK, after seeing this, I'm now persuaded that we're getting into Tawana Brawley territory here:

Over the last few days, sources close to the defense have given ABC News an exclusive look at the evidence behind one player's alleged alibi — evidence that includes electronic records, photographs and witness statements. If that material is authentic, it could prove that it was practically impossible for him to rape, kidnap or assault the alleged victim.

Seligmann's argument is simple: He is innocent and he has an alibi. He attended the party that night, but documents, photos and witness testimony show that he wasn't there long enough or at the right time to attack the alleged victim.

...By 12:24 a.m., a receipt reviewed by ABC indicates that Seligmann's ATM card was used at a nearby Wachovia bank. In a written statement to the defense also reviewed by ABC, a cabdriver confirms picking up Seligmann and a friend a block and a half from the party, and driving them to the bank. By 12:25 a.m., he was making a phone call to a girlfriend out of state.

...ABC News traced the steps of Seligmann's story, timing how long it took to get from place to place. In repeated trials, the drive between the Wachovia branch and the corner where the cab picked him up took approximately five minutes. This suggests that Seligmann must have left the house by around 12:19 a.m.

So, Seligmann's alibi suggests, he and the alleged victim were in the house together for less than 20 minutes. According to defense sources, based on the alleged victim's affidavit, all of the following would have transpired within that time period: She and her dance partner performed for several minutes, left after feeling threatened by the boys' growing "excited and aggressive," returned after being persuaded by team members to dance some more, and then she was forced into a bathroom, beaten and raped.

Within those same minutes, phone bill records reviewed by ABC show that the defendant's cell phone made at least two outgoing calls.

I believe this is a first for RWN. An entire post culled together (after being cleaned up just a bit and adding links) from posts made by two people in the comments section.

Let's see just how racist conservatives are...

1. Emancipation Proclamation issued by...a Republican President.

2. Slavery abolished under...a Republican President and a Republican Congress.

3. Japanese interned under a Repub...no, wait...sorry, that was a Democrat.

4. (Percentage wise), more Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats. They must've had some ulterior racist motive of which only they were aware.

5. Affirmative Action implemented under a Republican President (Nixon).

6. First black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as first black Secretary of State, under a Republican President.

7. First black woman named as Secretary of State...under a Republican President.

8. Still, lots and lots of KKK members in Congress are part of the Republican Party. No...my mistake again - Byrd is the only one I found (and he's a Democrat).

9. Republicans oppose the school choice and vouchers that the...majority of blacks support. Oops, my mistake again - Republicans support them while Democrats oppose them.

10. Well, at least the majority of blacks are pro-choice, right? Nope, most are...pro-life.

11. Well, at least most support gay marriage. Sorry, my mistake again. Once more, Republicans are more in line with majority black views than Democrats.

12. Republicans throw Oreo cookies at...black people running for Congress. Darn, that's the Dems, too.

13. Republicans enacted the Jim Crow laws. Nope, wrong again.

14. Republicans are racist because the Democrats say we are. That's about as close as I can get.

It's because they're so handcuffed by all the silly, unspoken rules that they apply to foreign policy...

(A few examples out of many)

-- Being liked by other countries is more important than defending American lives.
-- If Europe doesn't approve, we shouldn't move.
-- We shouldn't use our military unless it doesn't benefit us.

...that they are simply incapable of dealing with tough foreign policy decisions.

But, because liberals lack the courage of their convictions and because the American people -- with good reason -- think the Democrats are too weak to handle our national security, libs always try to obfuscate their real positions on foreign policy.

Come on, you lefties, for once, just be honest with yourself and with the American people and admit that you would rather let Iran have nukes than bomb them. Don't dance around it, don't come up with excuses not to answer, just admit the truth. You think it's better for the world's foremost terrorist state -- a nation ruled by Islamo-fascists, who chant, "Death to America," -- to have nukes than the US, or Israel for that matter, to bomb them.

Just admit it...

Domestic

George Bush: "I'm The Decider, And I Decide What Is Best. And What's Best Is For Don Rumsfeld To Remain As The Secretary Of Defense."

Rumsfeld Says No One Is Indispensable But He Is Not Considering Quitting In The Face Of Criticism From A Handful Of Retired Generals

Graphic: How Many Generals Oppose Rumsfeld?

Democratic Governor In Arizona Vetoes Criminal Immigrant Bill

Marching Illegal Aliens Hurl Rocks And Eggs At The Home Of Elderly American Couple

Eyewitness News Looks At Party Photos Of The Controversial Duke Lacrosse Party

Bush Picks Portman As Budget Director (Free Wapo Reg Req)

Northern Kentucky U. Professor Put On Leave In Wake Of Anti-Abortion Display's Dismantling (Applause)

McKinney Report Cites Assault With 'Closed Fist'

Black Business Owners On Rise

Congress: No Israeli Bullets

Bush Death Threat Tied To PU Student

Foreign

Bush: 'All Options On The Table' With Iran

Islamic Jihad Claims They Have 70 More Terrorist Attacks Planned Against Israel (Free Jerusalem Post Reg Req)

Alarm Over Rise In Venezuelan Drugs Traffic

Columns

Senator Jeff Sessions: The Senate Immigration “Compromise” Won’t Do

Amir Taheri: Dithering Won't Stop Iran's Nukes

David Boaz: Stalin's Songbird. The New Yorker Didn't Quite Find Room To Detail Seeger's Long Habit Of Following The Stalinist Line

John Stossel: That Post-Tax Day Headache Will Be Significantly Stronger After Reading This

Left-Overs

Cruise, Holmes Have Baby Girl Named Suri (No Word On Whether Cruise Ate The Placenta)

LA Woman Hospitalized With Bubonic Plague

Quarter Art

Humor: The Moonbats Are on the Edge of the Cliff, So Let's Give Them a Little Push

Website Of The Day: Alarming News

Thank you, Tom Cruise. Because you're such a wacko, most Americans are learning more than they ever wanted to know about what some deranged people do with their baby's placenta:

"TOM Cruise yesterday revealed his latest bizarre mission..to eat his new baby's placenta.

Cruise vowed he would tuck in straight after girlfriend Katie Holmes gives birth, saying he thought it would be "very nutritious".

The Mission Impossible star, 43, said: "I'm gonna eat the placenta. I thought that would be good. Very nutritious. I'm gonna eat the cord and the placenta right there." It is the latest in a series of increasingly strange outbursts from Cruise in the run-up to the birth.

...Cruise, who has two adopted children with ex-wife Nicole Kidman, will not be the first star to make a meal out of his baby's placenta.

Rod Stewart and girlfriend Penny Lancaster took home their baby's placenta, sprinkled it with tee tree oil and buried it in the garden.

In 1998, Channel 4 chef Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall fried a placenta with shallots and garlic and served it up to 20 guests, including the baby's mum and dad.

TV watchdogs later criticised the show, branding it "disagreeable".

But placenta-eating is considered normal in some cultures. Various recipes include one for placenta lasagne. Some say eating it helps avoid post-natal depression."

"(P)lacenta-eating" (may be) "considered normal in some cultures," but this isn't one of them. Placenta eating is gross, gross, gross! And Rod Stewart buried his baby's placenta in the garden? What, was he hoping a "placenta tree" would grow on that spot? To tell you the truth, I don't even want to know what he was trying to do.

PS: If by some odd chance, a friend of Katie Holmes is reading this, can you pass a message on to her for me? Can you just tell her to, "RUN! RUN FOR YOUR LIFE, KATIE, WHILE THERE'S STILL TIME! TOM IS OUT OF HIS MIND!"

*** Update #1 ***: Apparently, Tom Cruise has played down reports that he's going to actually eat his baby's placenta...

But in a subsequent interview with Diane Sawyer on US television, he made light of the comments.

"Yeah, we're going to do that - a whole family thing. Isn't that normal and natural? No, we're not eating it."

In politics, that's what's called a, "non-denial denial." He's saying that the family won't be eating the placenta, but he doesn't say he's not going to personally do it.

So, does that mean he does plan to eat his kid's placenta?

I don't know. Maybe it was a joke, maybe it wasn't. All I can tell you is that if there was a contest to pick a guy in Hollywood who's barmy enough to tell the whole world he plans to eat his own baby's placenta, Cruise would definitely be one of the finalists.

Buy that SUV! Do it for the dinosaurs!

Fossil fuels are the local, dependable, natural source of power.

Hat tip to the hilarious Evil Conservatives website for the images.

6 retired generals have come out against Donald Rumsfeld? What's my response to that?

It's, "so what?"

There are 4700 retired general officers in the US and if there were 7 times as many of them complaining publicly about Rumsfeld right now, they wouldn't make up 1% of the total.

This is a story that should have been buried on A-14 and then forgotten about and, quite frankly, if a Democrat were in office instead of Bush, you can be sure that this story would have been given the inattention it so richly deserves.

That's all I have to say about it because that's all the buzz this piddly and insignificant story deserves.

Folks, you remember that illegal immigration "compromise" bill that came so close to getting signed in the Senate that they actually gave a press conference telling Americans that it was basically a done deal (before it went down the tubes the next day)?

Well, according to Senator John Cornyn, "immigration enforcement would stop upon enactment of the bill." Let me repeat that. According to Senator John Cornyn, "immigration enforcement would stop upon enactment of the bill."

From John Cornyn's website:

THE PROBLEM:

The Compromise bill includes language that would prevent the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from detaining or deporting any alien who files an application with the government. The “safe harbor” provisions would apply even if the alien was ineligible for the amnesty because of prior criminal violations. Moreover, DHS would be required to issue the alien a secure travel and work authorization document while the application was pending.

This language is broader than the text of the 1986 amnesty, which required the alien to establish a prima facie case for eligibility, did not limit DHS’s ability to detain the alien, and did not require DHS to issue a travel document. This loophole, though, is easy to fix.

...BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF THE PROBLEM:

* The compromise bill even protects illegal aliens before DHS has implemented the program by restricting DHS’s ability to deport any alien “who is apprehended before the beginning of the application period.”

o In simple terms, immigration enforcement would stop upon enactment of the bill. Every single alien who is apprehended—and there were more than a million apprehended along the southern border last year alone—could easily establish prima facie eligibility for the amnesty and DHS would be prohibited from deporting the alien.

o This could be particularly problematic because of the “rush to the border” that would inevitably occur between date of enactment and close of the application period.

The Hagel/Martinez bill states that any alien who files an application for amnesty:

o “shall not be detained, determined inadmissible or deportable, or removed pending final adjudication of the alien’s application. . . unless the alien commits an act which renders the alien ineligible.”

o “shall be granted employment authorization pending final adjudication…”

o “shall be granted permission to travel…”

The carve-out from criminal activity would only apply to criminal activity going forwards (“unless the alien commits….”). Any criminal illegal alien who is in jail right now could file an application for amnesty and DHS might be prohibited from taking the criminal alien into custody upon completion of his jail sentence and deporting the alien.

With upwards of 12 million illegal aliens eligible to apply for the amnesty, it could take many years to adjudicate all of the applications. Yet the bill would grant all those individuals all of the benefits of legal status – e.g. travel and work authorization – before they establish eligibility.

Not only would we have had illegal aliens in the country and able to work, we'd have had to allow illegal aliens who were criminals to stay in the country for years. Illegals caught by the border patrol? They'd have been allowed to stay in the country for years.

How is it that two Republicans could come up with this bill? How could Bill Frist and George Bush publicly support it at one point? Worse yet, how is it that 38 Democrats could vote for cloture this bill?

What a disgrace.

Hat tip to Kathryn Jean Lopez at the Corner for the link to the Cornyn website.

Liberals love to claim that conservatives hate minorities.

If you believe the left, no matter what we say or do to the contrary, every conservative is really a hate mongering bigot. However, if you ask me, a lot of that is pure projection. One of the reasons I say that is because a lot of liberals have no qualms about hurling vulgar, race-based insults at conservative minorities.

That's not to say that liberals don't love minorities. They do love them -- as long as they do exactly what they're told by white liberals. The moment minorities step off the liberal plantation, a lot of those same politically correct, "tolerant" liberals don't just disagree with them, they start coming up with the sort of insults that would make David Duke or Robert Byrd crack a smile.

Let me give you one example.

A liberal group called Students Against War put out a nauseating press release bragging how they drove military recruiters off the UC Santa Cruz campus in a time of war. In their press release, they included their contact information which Michelle Malkin, among other people, posted.

Well, these goofs at Students Against War are apparently as dumb as they are unpatriotic, because they seem to be shocked, shocked I tell you, that they've received angry and threatening emails and phone calls after what they did.

Moreover, these morons and various liberal blogs, irrationally picked Michelle out of the hat and blamed her for the death threats SAW received despite the fact that SAW's email and phone numbers are still posted all over the web.

Anyway, here's the sort of email Michelle is getting from liberals who are hearing about this story on the left side of the blogosphere:

Michael McPherson michaelmc123@****
6:42 pm (1 hour ago)

You are a f*cking slanty-eyed c*nt.

Have a nice day

From: NorthCentralGuy@***** NorthCentralGuy@*****
Mailed-By: aol.com
Date: Apr 17, 2006 7:47 PM
Subject: TIP

Someone ought to sew your c*nt up with barbed wire. Not that it gets any use, you facist, hate spewing, disgraceful piece of sh*t.

Craig Mayor trilevel@****
Date: Apr 17, 2006 7:24 PM
Subject: ch*nk scum

listen ch*nk

leave the students alone

lets call YOUR friends and family

What you're seeing here, folks, is what a lot of politically correct liberals REALLY think of minorities. It's not such a pretty picture, is it?

*** Update #1: *** 1) Let me just say that there was absolutely nothing whatsoever wrong with Michelle posting the phone numbers and email addresses of the SAW people on her website. Nothing.

While I have condemned posting private home addresses and phone numbers publicly, when you put a phone number or email address on a press release, as far as I'm concerned, you have no standing to complain about it being publicized. After all, that's the whole point of the press release.

2) Also, let me add that when you brag about engaging in seditious behavior ("Our demonstration today is a clear example of how tangible success can be when we take strategic actions against the war at a local level.") against the troops while they're fighting and dying across the world for our freedom, it's almost guaranteed to produce an enormously strong reaction from people. That's why trying to blame Michelle Malkin because these anti-military scumbags in SAW got some vicious emails and calls is so disingenuous.

3) That's doesn't excuse the threatening, obscene, and obnoxious phone calls or email, however. In fact, I would suggest that the people at SAW contact local law enforcement and tell them that they want to prosecute anyone who threatened them.

4) Also, I caught this little gem in the SAW press release:

"It’s been over a year and a half since the military has been able to effectively recruit on this UC campus as all their attempts have been met by mass student actions."

If that's true, it would seem to indicate that Santa Cruz University is in violation of the law and per the Solomon Amendment (Hat tip, Michelle), it means that all Federal Funding to the school should be cut off.

Surely there must be some Republicans in Congress who'll stick up for the military and make a big issue out of this.

"It goes without saying that what Fred Phelps and the rest of the lunatics in God Hates F*gs are doing is completely beyond the pale, especially when they're protesting these funerals. That community can -- and should -- be able to legally ban their funeral protests without running afoul of the First Amendment.

If it's permissible under the First Amendment to require permits to protest, prohibit the use of, "fighting words," and disallow people from disturbing the peace by, let's say, holding rallies at 3 AM in residential neighborhoods, then certainly communities should be within their rights to ban people from protesting funerals -- and again, they should.

At a minimum, Phelps and his group of wackos are incredibly disrespectful to people who are mourning and at worst, their behavior is so intentionally provocative that it could very easily lead to violent confrontations.

That's why it's time for local governments to step in and shut down these funeral protests once and for all." -- John Hawkins on Jan 9, 2006

From the New York Times yesterday,

"In the past few months, nine states, including Oklahoma, Wisconsin and Indiana, have approved laws that restrict demonstrations at a funeral or burial. In addition, 23 state legislatures are getting ready to vote on similar bills, and Congress, which has received thousands of e-mail messages on the issue, expects to take up legislation in May dealing with demonstrations at federal cemeteries.

"I haven't seen something like this," said David L. Hudson Jr., research attorney for the First Amendment Center, referring to the number of state legislatures reacting to the protests. "It's just amazing. It's an emotional issue and not something that is going to get a lot of political opposition."

Most of the state bills and laws have been worded carefully to try to avoid concerns over the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech. The laws typically seek to keep demonstrators at a funeral or cemetery 100 to 500 feet from the entrance, depending on the state, and to limit the protests to one hour before and one hour after the funeral.

A few states, including Wisconsin, also seek to bar people from displaying "any visual image that conveys fighting words" within several hundred feet or during the hours of the funeral. The laws or bills do not try to prevent protesters from speaking out.

Constitutional experts say there is some precedent for these kinds of laws. One case in particular, which sought to keep anti-abortion picketers away from a private home, was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1988.

"A funeral home seems high on the list of places where people legitimately could be or should be protected from unwanted messages," said Michael C. Dorf, a constitutional law professor at Columbia University Law School."

All I can say is that I'd like to see these laws in every state and the sooner that they're enacted, the better as far as I'm concerned.

Foreign

Suicide Bomber Kills 9 At Tel Aviv Eatery

Palestinians: Tel Aviv Bombing Justified

Iranians Claim To Have 40,000 Suicide Bombers Ready To Attack America

New Worry Rises After Iran Claims Nuclear Steps

France Tries To Pay Illegal Aliens To Go Home And Finds Few Takers

Domestic

2 Duke Lacrosse Players Indicted in Rape Case (Free New York Times Reg Req)

Guard Who Saw Alleged Duke Victim Says No Sign or Mention of Rape

Georgia Governor Signs Sweeping Immigration Law (Huge Applause)

Kids In One LA School Had To Use Buckets To Go To The Bathroom During An Illegal Immigration Lockdown (Free LA Times Reg Req)

Illegal Aliens Demand That Lou Dobbs Be Fired For Hurting Their Cause

Four Retired Generals Fire Back At Critics Of Defense Secretary

A Federal Jury Convicted Former Republican Gov. George Ryan On Corruption Charges

Donald Rumsfeld: Media Sees Military As 'Other Side'

Congress Approval At 12-Year Low. Congress Dropped 4 Points In The Last Month

Recommending Conservative Books Equates To 'Sexual Harassment' At Ohio State University At Mansfield

Dick Cheney Donates Millions to Charity

'Roe V. Wade': The Divided States Of America

GOP Web Game: Democrats Vs. Working Families

Columns

Star Parker: Se Habla Entitlement

Polipundit: Why Immigration Matters

Heather Mac Donald: Postmodern “Rights” En Los Estados Unidos. “I Am Here,” So Deal With It.

Burt Prelutsky: Wake Up And Smell The Salsa

Hugh Hewitt: Like Saddam, Iranian Leaders Have Wholeheartedly Embraced Terror As A Weapon Of Foreign Policy

Confederate Yankee: The Sheepdog's War

Jim Geraghty: Yes, Yes, ‘The GOP Is Doomed In November.’ Somehow I Feel Like I’ve Heard This Before

Michael Barone: Will Democrats win control of the House in November?

Joseph Lindsley: Democrats Try To Talk Like God-Fearing Folk

Rush Interviews Secretary Of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

Left-Overs

Prompted By Lefty Bloggers, Liberals Aim Racial Slurs At Michelle Malkin

Hustler Magazine Tricked Conservative Former House Speaker-Elect Bob Livingston Into Resigning

The US Air Force Has Unveiled A Stealth Fighter So Advanced That No Other Aircraft In The World Stands A Chance Against it

Funny Video: SNL Lampoons Press Corps, Especially Norah O’Donnell

Website Of The Day: Ed Driscoll

Under threat of United Nations Security Council sanctions for its own nuclear program, Iran has been elected to a vice-chair position on the U.N. Disarmament Commission, whose mission includes deliberations on preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.

...It happened on the same day that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad promised his people "good news" about the country's nuclear program.

The following day, Iran announced that it had managed to enrich uranium, a key ingredient in the production of a nuclear bomb." -- CNSNews

Hat tip to Tammy Bruce.

Over at the DU forums, they're having a discussion about whether they should leave America now (Yes, go, go, go!) or whether they should stay and try to fight against the government, presumably Red Dawn style, after all the liberals are sent to camps.

Enjoy the delusional liberal ranting!

helderheid: For those planning on leaving the US and those planning on staying

I don't see why people are so angry at those who wish to leave the US - we don't know for certain what our future holds but wouldn't it be better if we had a world wide DU network in case we all have to leave sometime? Just like the Underground Railroad - this is the Democratic Underground Railroad.

I won't bash anyone who plans on leaving. We need people inside and outside the US on the side of the Constitution.

Lerkfish: I support your statement. in my gut, I feel we are in an analagous situation as when the Nazis took over Germany. There is a short period of relative safety to leave, and then, there won't be a way to leave, and then it will be too late.

I don't consider those who left germany cowards, they are the ones who survived.

novalib: I Hear You....BUT I would rather be a live American, fighting the regime from outside the USA....than a dead victim.

If it ever gets that serious (and I believe it will, given the course of events), I'm going to leave and continue the fight from outside the United States.

bmcatt: I speak as someone who's considering leaving. I have a wife and 2 young kids (3.5 years and 6 months). The country I was born in (almost 39 years ago) doesn't exist any more.

I'm not against fighting. But my first responsibiilty is *NOT* to fight for the ideal of my country. It's to fight for my family. The vast majority of American citizens seem to no longer remember nor care about the ideals of this country. Whether anyone wants to claim that it's because they've been brainwashed, are listening to the propaganda or are just plain dumb-as-a-box-of-rocks stupid, it doesn't matter. You can't stage a revolution with a tiny minority. I see too many people (not here) who are perfectly happy to watch their rights get taken away, bit-by-bit, and think it's ok, so long as they can watch American Idol and hear about the latest missing blonde girl.

I respect your right to your opinion that the ideals of this country are worth fighting for. I even support that effort. That does not, however, give you the right to insult and denigrate, nor question the patriotism of, those of us who contemplate escaping as an alternative.

Consider Germans in 1935-1937... If they had a chance to escape the oncoming tragedy of WWII, would you have blamed them for not staying and being "Good Germans"? I, personally, see the current situation as *very* akin to that

RufusEarl: If americans by americans i mean DU er's leave the USA, to what country would one most likely flee to? I'm just curious, i don't plan on leaving the states. But i have thought about where to make my stand, because i do believe we're going to have to make a stand in the near future.

But my main question is this; Is there a particular country that most DUer's will go? And if so why that country?

catmandu57: I can't leave. Physically, and financially I'm here to stay, though if the worst case comes to past I'll be picked up in the first wave, it gives me comfort to know that there will be people on the outside to continue the fight.

I tend to be very skeptical of internet polls because they can be so easily manipulated. But, the results of these two polls on illegal immigration over at Free Republic caught my eye because it breaks out the FR members from the general public. That makes it much less likely that the poll could be, irony of ironies, freeped =D

Keep in mind, before you see these results, that Free Republic is crammed full of the sort of people who donate money to conservative candidates, put up yard signs, man phone banks for the GOP and tend to turn out, rain or shine, to vote for Republicans. In short, as Free Republic goes (minus a few oddballs here and there), so goes the base.

First of all, let's take a look at what the Freepers think of the illegal immigration bill in the House. Here's the question:

"Do you support or oppose H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005?"

Here's the response:

That would seem to be a surprisingly strong endorsement of the House approach to illegal immigration...but, hold onto your hats, folks, because you haven't seen anything yet. If you're a Republican up on Capitol Hill, the numbers you're about to see from the 2nd poll should send a cold chill running down your spine.

Here's the question:

If the White House and GOP controlled Congress does not act immediately to seal the borders, penalize employers who hire illegals and deport illegals when caught, how will it affect your vote in November?

Here's the response:

Somebody needs to wake the Washington GOP up to the fact that they're about to step into a pile of cow flop the size of a swimming pool here. Can the GOP really afford to tell 54.8% of their base to go take a flying leap on an issue that obviously matters so much to them? Let me answer my own question: not just no, but hell, no.

Of course, there is an obvious solution to this dilemma and that would be for the Republicans in the Senate to get behind a bill like H.R. 4437 and leave the guest worker program/citizenship program for later. That would unite the Republican base and it would force the Democrats to either get on board or vote against securing the border. So either we'd get a good bill for America or a great issue for the GOP to campaign on in 2006. Either way, it would allow the GOP to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat on this issue and given how things are shaping up, the GOP could sure use that kind of shot in the arm going into the November elections. Let's hope the Republicans in Washington are smart enough to turn the illegal immigration issue into a big opportunity, instead of a disaster.

It's never a surprise when Democrats want to raise taxes, especially when it comes to the windfall profits tax, which is like a liberal dream. Not only do they get to increase taxes, but in the process, they get to play the class warfare card and pretend to do something about the high cost of gas, which is a major source of discontent.

Courtesy of UPI, here's Dick Durbin's plan to loot the oil companies for more money that can be wasted on bridges named after Robert Byrd and government funded studies that determine how cow flatulence affects the environment:

"American consumers are demanding congressional action to slow down skyrocketing gasoline prices, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said Friday.

"Oil companies are living in the fast lane and consumers are being left on the side of the road," he said in a release in which he cited cases of extraordinary profits. He urged action on his proposal that he says would ease the problem.

Durbin's Windfall Profits Tax bill would impose an excise tax on integrated oil and gas companies equal to 50 percent of their profits over a baseline price of $40 per barrel of oil.

Part of the revenue would fund a consumer rebate and a low income assistance program."

So, we're going to tax the oil companies because we've decided that prices are, "too high." So, does that mean they get a subsidy from the government when prices are, "too low?" No, of course not. Government piracy only works one way unless the pork can be doled out to businesses in return for, "I'll scratch your back and you scratch mine," campaign contributions down the road.

But, let's tell it like it is here: this is all about raising taxes, not about lowering the price of gas. If it was about helping consumers, ALL, not "part" of the revenue would be going into a "consumer rebate" program. Moreover, if Dick Durbin and Company were really concerned about the price of gasoline, they could always cut the federal tax on gas which amounts to 18.4 cents per gallon and is oftentimes matched by a state tax that's just as high, if not higher.

Furthermore, it's also worth noting that Dick Durbin, the other Democrats in Congress, and their supporters in the environmentalist movement have a lot to do with high gas prices. They've blocked drilling at ANWR, they fight drilling all across the US, they fight against building more refineries, and they've never met a gas tax that they thought was too high. Then, after doing everything humanly possible to drive up the cost of gasoline, they turn around and point the finger of blame at the oil companies. Hey, Dick, what about the role that you and your Democratic buddies in the Senate have played in driving up costs for consumers?

Moreover, let's talk a little bit about the "obscene profits" these oil companies supposedly make. Setting aside the fact that these businesses already pay an arm and a leg in taxes as it is, ("Exxon, ConocoPhillips and Chevron paid a combined $44.3 billion in corporate income taxes in 2005"), what these liberals don't tell you is that because of the size of these oil companies, they can make enormous sums of money, and still not be raking in as much, percentage wise, as businesses in other industries.

Just take a look at this article about oil company profits that was in the WAPO last year and you'll see what I mean:

"For example, Exxon Mobil's gross margin of 9.8 cents of profit for every dollar of revenue pales in comparison to Citigroup Inc.'s 15.7 cents in 2004. By percentage of total revenue, banking is consistently the most profitable industry in America, followed closely by the drug industry.

Altria Group, the maker of Marlboro and other cigarettes, made 22 cents for every dollar of revenue in 2004, and pharmaceutical company Merck made 25.3 cents for every dollar of revenue in 2004.

By other measures, such as profit per employee, return on invested capital and free cash flow, Exxon Mobil is nowhere near a standout."

Again, what this comes back to is that for liberals, any excuse to raise taxes is a good excuse, and that's what this is really all about. Let's hope the American people don't get suckered into supporting the left's socialistic attempt to penalize oil companies for being successful.

One of the hot topics around the blogosphere this week-end was a WAPO piece on an extremely angry, liberal blogger by the name of Maryscott O'Connor -- and did I say angry? I meant enraged, furious, a regular little, glowing ball o' hate 'n' rage:

"In the angry life of Maryscott O'Connor, the rage begins as soon as she opens her eyes and realizes that her president is still George W. Bush. The sun has yet to rise and her family is asleep, but no matter; as soon as the realization kicks in, O'Connor, 37, is out of bed and heading toward her computer.

Out there, awaiting her building fury: the Angry Left, where O'Connor's reputation is as one of the angriest of all. "One long, sustained scream" is how she describes the writing she does for various Web logs, as she wonders what she should scream about this day, from the race for control of Congress in 2006 to scrutinizing the 2008 presidential hopefuls.

She smokes a cigarette. Should it be about Bush, whom she considers "malevolent," a "sociopath" and "the Antichrist"? She smokes another cigarette. Should it be about Vice President Cheney, whom she thinks of as "Satan," or about Karl Rove, "the devil"? Should it be about the "evil" Republican Party, or the "weaselly, capitulating, self-aggrandizing, self-serving" Democrats, or the Catholic Church, for which she says "I have a special place in my heart . . . a burning, sizzling, putrescent place where the guilty suffer the tortures of the damned"?

...."It has come to the point where the worst people on Earth are running the Earth." And now, "I have become one of those people with all the bumper stickers on their car," she says. "I am this close to being one of those muttering people pushing a cart.

"I'm insane with rage and grief.

...As for the keyboard, it is where O'Connor finished her evolution from lost soul to angry soul, beginning with that very first rant, which concluded with a wish that Bush, "after contracting incurable cancer and suffering for protracted periods of time without benefit of medication," go to hell."

Dude, she's completely and utterly out of her mind. Take it from a psych major, she doesn't need to be blogging, she needs to be lying on a psychologist's couch somewhere trying to get her life back under control. Granted, politics can be infuriating at times, but if you spend all day, every day, angry about politics, you've got mental problems you need professional help working through.

Here's a piece of unsolicited advice for the few people this angry about politics on the right (I'm looking at you, Michael Savage) or the legions that are this enraged on the left: quit following politics before you turn into Maryscott O'Connor or worse yet, Cindy Sheehan.

Life is just too short to be bitter and angry all the time. Granted, that's not profound advice, nor can it be sung to a catchy, yet incredibly annoying tune like, Don't Worry Be Happy, but it's true. At the end of the day, if you don't enjoy blogging, if instead you're screaming at the TV or yelling at your kid because you're so angry George Bush went up two points in the latest poll, then, for your own sake, you really need to get away from politics.

I sure could use a little racism like that in my life.

Funnyman Dave Chappelle cites racial prejudice as the reason for his abrupt walk-out from his hit Comedy Central series, "Chappelle's Show" last year.

The stand-up comedian made headlines in May 2005 when he quit the show during its third season, leaving behind a $50 million contract.

He was eventually tracked down in South Africa where he said he went to "purify himself," and "do some soul searching" because he was unhappy with the direction the show was going.

During an interview, Chappelle told Esquire magazine, "The bottom line was, white people own everything..."

Well, they no longer owned that $50 million they gave to you, until you gave it back.

.".. and where can a black person go and be himself or say something that's familiar to him and not have to explain or apologize? I felt like I was really pressured to settle for something that I didn't necessarily feel like I wanted. The thing about show business is that, in a way, it forces dysfunctional relationships in people."

I don't get it. Life is full of compromises imposed upon us. Is the idea of black authenticity, whatever the hell that is, so strong in some people they think they should be freed of the compromises just about every human being on the planet must accept?

To me, $50 million buys a lot of goodwill and spirit of compromise.

Some people handle this kind of amazing success relatively well. Some people just go bananas. I guess I understand that last part; hey, if your life circumstances suddenly changed from everything you had previously known -- hassels, money problems, a boss you hate, etc. -- into something resembling that Twillight Zone episode where you're suddenly in heaven on earth, maybe you too would find that a heaven where you're given everything you've always dreamed of looks a lot like Hell. It's just disorienting, I guess.

(Although: I sure would like to be disoriented in such a fashion.)

Chappelle has previously stated he walked away from the $50 million because he felt that kind of money alienated him from his audience, and, presumably, his friends and family, and from himself as well. That sounds strange, but then, that is, after all, a life-changing amount of money, and some people may just recoil from such a life-changing event.

But now he's crying racism. The evil racism of white men who tried to make him a "slave." A fifty-million-dollar incredibly-famous do-a-job-you-love walk-away-after-three-years-and-never-need-to-work-again-except-on-your-tan "slave."

Chappelle always struck me as sensible. But I think now he's been deranged by his jaw-dropping success.

This content was used with the permission of Ace of Spades HQ

Foreign

Istanbul blasts wounds 31

Zarqawi, Al Qaeda Are Heading Out, U.S. General Says (I'm Skeptical, But This Is Still Interesting)

Shiites Propose Deal To End Deadlock

Iraqi Sunni Leader Turns His Guns On Foreign Insurgents

Iran Issues Stark Military Warning To United States

Iranians Volunteer For "Martyrdom Missions"

Blair Refuses To Back Iran Strike With Military Forces

Domestic

Unions Worked Up Over Illegals

50% Of Free Republic Members Say They Will Vote 3rd Party Or Stay Home If The GOP Doesn't "Seal The Borders, Penalize Employers Who Hire Illegals And Deport Illegals When Caught."

George Allen to Senate: Secure the Borders

An Illegal Immigrant Who Tried To Bring Down A U.S. Border Patrol Helicopter By Throwing Rocks At It Was Sentenced To 38 Months In Federal Prison

Maryland Towns Outlaw McMansions (Dumb)

University Of South Florida Professor Sami Al-Arian To Be Deported (Applause)

Columns

Yuri Mamchur: A Legal Non-Immigrant Worker’s View Of The Illegal Immigrant Protests

Deborah Orin: Illegals' Rallies Alien-Ate Voters

Mark Steun: Policy On Iran Nukes Seems To Be Off-Target

Amir Taheri: The Frightening Truth Of Why Iran Wants A Bomb

Former General Michael DeLong: A General Misunderstanding (Free NYT Reg Req)

John Leo: Bush Was Right About Iraq's Quest For Uranium

Jamie Lincoln Kitman: Hybrids Aren't Necessarily Fuel Efficient (Free New York Times Reg Req)

Peter Bronson: Bill Cosby's Sermon -- Stand For Something

Left-Overs

The Blog As Community

6 Generals Out Of 4700 Don't Like Rumsfeld. Big Deal.

Blogger Emails And Blogosphere Economics

WMD Math

Man Planned To Eat Murder Victim: Police

Video: Snake Coughs Up An Entire Hippo (Some Obscene Links)

Humor: Extended Ted Kennedy Transcript From DC Illegal Immigration Rally

Website Of The Day: Lifelike Pundits