Where You WON'T See Stephen Colbert Speaking Truthiness To Power

Sudan And Largest Rebel Faction Sign Pact To End Carnage

Stop The ACLU

Send-A-Brick

Porter Goss Abruptly Resigns As CIA Chief

Pirate's Cove

Palmetto Pundit

Martinis, Persistence, And A Smile

Media Bloggers Association

Marginal Revolution

Lewis Libby Defense Lawyer Theodore Wells Told A Federal Judge A Short Time Ago That The Libby Defense Team Has Located “Five Witnesses Who Will Say Under Oath That Mr. [Joseph] Wilson Told Them His Wife Worked For The CIA.”

Free Constitution

Counterterrorism Blog

An Interview With Michelle Malkin

Ace In The Hole

Question: "Do you think the base will punish the congressional Republicans this November by staying home? Do you think we should?

My opinion by the way is that as much as I would love to see some of those nimrods get punished for their behavior (acting like Democrats) I don't think now is the time because the alternative would mean that impeachment proceedings will begin next January." -- WSOwen02

Answer: As anyone who reads RWN regularly knows, I have no qualms whatsoever about ripping Republicans up one side and down the other when they deserve it. Moreover, I'm not a "Party Man." My loyalty is to conservatism and conservative ideals, not the Republican Party.

That being said, the Republican Party is the only vehicle conservatives have to get our agenda enacted. The Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, Reform Party, etc., etc., are never going to amount to anything and quite frankly, there's not a single issue I can think of where the Democrats are legitimately to the right of the GOP.

Does that mean there's never a good reason to vote against a Republican? No. Sometimes, when you have a particularly corrupt (see Duke Cunningham) or racist (see James Hart) Republican, they reflect badly on the whole Party and we're better off without them.

Furthermore, to tell you the honest truth, I wouldn't mind seeing John McCain or Lincoln Chafee lose their seats either. Chafee is legitimately to the left-of-center, didn't vote for Bush in 2004, and it's entirely possible that he might switch parties anyway. Getting rid of him would be like a warning shot across the bow of the other RINOs in the Senate. In regard to McCain, as often as not, when the Senate GOP does something stupid, destructive, and plain old "unconservative," John McCain turns out to be at the bottom of it. He's not the only RINO in the Senate, but he's the leader-of-the-pack and we'd be better off with him out of the way.

Other than those exceptions to the rule, I don't believe in protest votes. If conservatives want to win the war of ideas, we need to get more foot soldiers, imperfect though they may be, elected and convince more Americans that we're right. Standing by as liberal Democrats take over is going to take us farther from our goals, not move us closer to them.

So, by all means, rip into Republicans you disagree with and try to push them in the direction we want to go. But, when the times comes, you should go to the polls and vote Republican.

Question: "Lionsgate recently acquired the distribution rights to produce a film version of Atlas Shrugged. Rumor is that Angelina Jolie will be cast as Dagny Taggart, with Brad Pitt opposite her as John Galt. Do you like the idea of converting the novel into a movie? Who would you cast in the film's major roles?" -- maledicta

Answer: I thought Atlas Shrugged was a phenomenal book and I would really be looking forward to seeing what Hollywood does with it, except that I'd be surprised if Hollywood doesn't screw it up.

For one thing, Atlas Shrugged is really too long to be done as a two hour movie. You'd probably need 3 hours or even a mini-series to do it effectively. I've heard some people suggest that they might do it as two parter, like Kill Bill, but I'm not really sure that would work either.

Even setting the length problem aside, the really big problem is that Atlas Shrugged is a book that completely and utterly rejects the liberal view of the world and yet, the project would end up being run by liberals from top to bottom. How can you expect a bunch of liberals to faithfully recreate Atlas Shrugged when a big part of the message of the movie is, "Big government liberalism will ruin the country?"

Somehow, some way, by the time the liberals get done tinkering with the script, it'll probably be conservative business owners wrecking America, socialists trying to save the country, and everyone will be walking around asking, "Who is Che Guevara?"

PS: Ever since I found out Angelina Jolie has a blood fetish and has walked around wearing clothes decorated with her own blood, she creeps me out. So, I wouldn't cast her as much of anything other than a serial killer. On the other hand, although I find Brad Pitt mildly annoying, I at least have to give him credit for being an excellent actor. So maybe Brad Pitt as John Galt and oh, Lisa Edelstein as Dagny Taggart?

Question: "I was just called up by the NRSC looking for money to re-elect the Republicans. I told the caller I would not send any money to the Republicans until something was done at the border and they built a fence. He proceeded to tell me the supplemental bill the Senate just passed and the president signed included paying for a border fence! He said the MSM just wasn't reporting it. I said I read a few other sources regularly and that it does not include a fence for the entire border. Could you please settle this for me? I just want to make sure that I understood correctly and possibly warn others that the NRSC money changers will lie to you to get your money. Thanks in advance!" -- margomc

Answer: The Senate has approved $1.9 billion for border security, but it's lodged in that $109 billion dollar pork bomb of an emergency spending bill that the House is balking at and that President Bush is threatening to veto.

Here are the details on the $1.9 billion from Bill Frist's website:

"The amendment allocates funding for border security technology, replacement of outdated Customs and Border Patrol vehicles, personnel training and other key infrastructure upgrades."

You'll notice that doesn't mention anything about a wall.

I actually went a little further and dug into H.R.4939, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 (Reported in House). As far as I could tell, there was nothing in there about building a wall either.

In order to get further comments, I tried calling Bill Frist and Judd Gregg (who offered the Amendment to the emergency spending bill), but their press people weren't picking up. So, since I had no luck with either of the Senators, I called the one place where they seem to know everything about illegal immigration: Tom Tancredo's office. I spoke to his press guy, Will, and he told me that the $1.9 billion in question is slated to be spent on immigration enforcement related activities, but not on a wall.

Question: "John I've been kinda wondering about John McCain. I know he thinks its time for him to be the president, but I also know he has done too many things to anger the base of conservatives. Let's just say he does not get the nomination. Do you think he would go independent out of spite to hurt conservatism? I mean like in anger say if I can't be president then no republican will. Do you think he would run anyway and try to split the vote enough to allow Hillary to win? Could it work if he did?" -- abel

Answer: McCain is a spiteful egomaniac and it's not impossible to imagine his running as an independent, as a Democratic Veep, or even just plain old switching parties.

But...but...you have to figure that if he was going to do it, he would have already done it. He's nearly 70 years old and he hasn't switched parties yet. He could have run as an independent in 2000 and 2004, but he didn't. John Kerry is a buddy of his and the VP slot was McCain's for the asking, but he didn't take it.

So, could McCain run as an independent? Maybe, but it seems unlikely at this point.

However, I will tell you that a third party challenge could be a problem for either party. Can they draw enough votes to win? No. Can they siphon off enough votes to cost one of the two big parties the election? You better believe it.

Question: "I noticed that video blogging seems to be getting more popular on the web these days. Michelle Malkin has a new website where she feature these video blogs or vlogs. What do you think of vlogs? And where do you think they will be in the future?" -- Scorched_Earth

Answer: In every way, Michelle Malkin was the perfect person to start up a vlog.

-- She has a huge audience and judging by the Sitemeter count at Hot Air, it looks like she's brought about 1/3 to 1/2 of her audience from her regular blog over with her.

-- It's a visual medium with a mostly male audience and she's a beautiful woman.

-- Michelle's regular blog gets paid through Pajamas Media, but her new blog goes through Blogads. So, even though there is probably a lot of crossover in audiences, she should have no problem double dipping and selling a lot of advertising on both blogs.

-- Michelle is high profile enough that there are probably cable networks that would consider giving her a show. Her daily vent gets her more "on air" practice and demos, which may make her even more of an attractive pick-up if, let's say, MSNBC wanted to replace a loser like Keith Olbermann with someone who may be able to draw decent ratings.

Add Michelle's success to that of Expose the Left and you can definitely see there's some potential in vlogging.

That being said, my guess is that most political bloggers who dip their toes into video blogging will do something more like Pam is doing over at Atlas Shrugs.

They'll find a nice comfy place to sit down and then they'll just riff on a topic. It's not too time consuming for the blogger to put together or the reader to watch, it can fit right in on a blog in the place of a regular post, and may even be a nice change of pace.

So, can you expect to see a lot more video blogging? Absolutely. Will some people really take to the medium and have it add a lot of value to the content they're putting out? Yes. Could we even see some very successful blogs that do nothing but vlogging? Sure. But, will video blogging replace blogging as we know in the foreseeable future? It seems unlikely. But still, vlogging is a great addition to the quiver for bloggers.

Question: "John, what are your thoughts on the Moussaoui verdict?" -- Kingfisher

Answer: I think it was a big mistake to send Moussaoui through the American court system. It's simply not properly equipped to deal with foreign terrorists and to tell you the truth, if Moussaoui wasn't such a huge idiot, he might have beaten the system entirely and found a way to get acquitted.

That's why I think they should have sent Moussaoui to Gitmo where he could have gone in front of a military tribunal, gotten a nice, fair trial and then -- hopefully -- a nice, fair hanging. But, at this point, that's water under the bridge and it looks like the only way Moussaoui is going to get what he deserves is if he's fatally shanked in prison.

Question: "I read that the Shah's grandson is trying to plan a new revolution in Iran. How long can the US afford to wait on Iranians to deal with the Mad Mullahs?" -- Compiled

Answer: The truth is, at this point, the general public really has no way of knowing how long we have until the Iranians have nukes. Israeli sources are indicating that time is growing short, that we may have a year or less to go. On the other hand, as evidenced by this statement last month from John Negroponte, America's intelligence agencies seem to believe we have much longer:

"According to the experts that I consult, achieving — getting 164 centrifuges to work is still a long way from having the capacity to manufacture sufficient fissile material for a nuclear weapon," Negroponte said. "It could still be a matter of years. ... In fact our assessment is that the prospects of an Iranian weapon are still a number of years off, and probably into the next decade."

The problem is that US intelligence agencies often disagree amongst themselves and with foreign intelligence agencies and in any case, have never been very good at judging how far along nations are at developing WMD (See Iraq, North Korea, and India). So, in the end, we're probably just going to be making educated guesses about how close Iran is to nukes.

Since that's the case, the key thing to remember is that bombing Iran way, way, way too early in order to put their program back several years is better than hitting them one second too late, after they have nuclear weapons.

Question: "Given the terrible performance of the US Senate and Senate Republicans in particular, I am in favor of repealing the 17th amendment and returning selection of senators to the state legislatures. I believe this will significantly reduce the influence of big money interests and increase the influence of local government at the expense of the federal government. Do you think this analysis is correct and what are the chances of actually achieving the repeal of amendment 17?" -- Sol_Invictus

Answer: First of all, here's the 17th Amendment:

Clause 1. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

Clause 2. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

Clause 3. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

What this did was change the way Senators were elected. Before the 17th Amendment, US Senators were elected by State Legislatures. Do keep in mind that it was not a perfect system. There were corruption charges and deadlocks that actually prevented Senate seats from being filled.

On the other hand, you can make an effective argument that the 17th Amendment should be repealed to undercut the power of special interests and shift power back to the states, but the chances of it actually happening are practically nil.

The American people aren't going to want to give up the right to vote for their Senators and the Senators aren't going to be keen to change a system that may, for many of them, make it much less likely that they'll be reelected.

Personally? I think we'd be better off pursuing non-retroactive term limits that would only apply to newly reelected members of Congress, not those representatives that are currently serving. That would also weaken the influence of special interests and encourage Senators to live up to their ideals. Plus, it would have an outside shot of passing if there was enough grassroots support.

*** Update #1 ***:

Question: "Can someone please summarize the core argument for me?

Repealing the 17th Amendment will significantly reduce the influence of big money interests and increase the influence of local government by _____

I have heard some people argue for the repeal before but I have never really gotten a clear answer on how or why it is supposed to help. Thanks!" -- jhr4n

Answer: Well, the dynamics would change a lot if Senators were elected by state legislatures instead of the public at large.

For one thing, they would no longer need massive campaign contributions to run statewide ads because they could, over the course of the year, actually sit down and talk to everyone who'd be voting for them. That's why "big money interests" would lose a lot of influence if the 17th Amendment was repealed.

The other thing to keep in mind is that Senators tend to have a very cavalier attitude about having the federal government usurp powers that should rightfully belong to the states. That's because the Senators themselves benefit when they acquire new powers. But, if they actually had to answer directly to their own state legislature, their attitude would likely reflect that of their new constituency and they'd become zealous guardians of state's rights.

Hope that helps.

Kennedy Car Crash Cover-Up?

Kennedy Blames Accident On Sleep Medicine. "Some Time Around 2:45 A.M., I Drove The Few Blocks To The Capitol Complex Believing I Needed To Vote. Apparently, I Was Disoriented From The Medication." (This Guy Is Too Out Of It To Be In Congress Even If He's Telling The Truth -- Which I Doubt)

Ariz. Posse To Arrest Illegal Immigrants

Growing Unease For Some Blacks On Immigration (Free New York Times Reg Req)

Rumsfeld Heckled By Former CIA Analyst, Ray McGovern

Ray McGovern Is An Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theorist

Senate Advances Flag Desecration Ban

Harris Poll: Support For Roe V. Wade. Hits New Low, Poll Shows

A Leaked Memo From Tony Snow

Howard Dean Fires Dems' Gay Outreach Chief. Shakeup Follows Criticism By Partner; Bond Named Replacement

Video Shows Al-Zarqawi Fumbling With Rifle

Cheney Rebukes Russians

Tom Coburn: Mr. President, Veto This Bill

Richard Cohen: Colbert Wasn't Funny

Charles Krauthammer: Never Again

Jonah Goldberg: Running On Empty On Gas Prices (Free LA Times Reg Req)

The Wall Street Journal: Republicans Should Welcome A Judicial Brawl

Victor Davis Hanson: Give Iran Enough Rope

Peggy Noonan: They Should Have Killed Him

Saudi Cleric Sees U.S. Collapsing, Muslim Victory. Al-Jazeera Broadcasts Remarks On Upcoming 'Battle' With 'Enemies Of Allah'

It Looks Like Andrea Clark Will Live, And A Lot Of Thanks Goes To John Hawkins... (Thank You)

Pickled Corpse Tumbles Out Of Rum Barrel. Thirsty Hungarians Find Surprising Cause For Drink’s ‘special Taste’

Website Of The Day: The Volokh Conspiracy

Today is Q&A Friday #39 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!

Consider the House's rejection of Roy Blunt as a "business-as-usual" Majority Leader, their tough stance on illegal immigration, and this statement from Dennis Hastert about the Senate's ridiculous, pork laden emergency spending bill:

"As it's currently drafted, the Senate's $109 billion emergency spending bill is dead on arrival in the House. President Bush requested $92 billion for the War on Terror and some hurricane spending. The House used fiscal restraint, but now the Senate wants to come to the table with a tab that's $17 billion over budget. The House has no intention of joining in a spending spree at the expense of American taxpayers."

Is the House perfect? No, but are they starting to get the message? Oh, you better believe it!

David Frum has written a gloomy piece for CATO about the future of conservatism. To make a long story short, he seems to think that Bush has put out the last sparks of Gingrich's Republican Revolution and it's all downhill from here.

Here's a short excerpt that doesn't truly capture the complexity of Frum's column, but does at least allow you to perceive the flavor of the piece:

"The fairest chance to achieve the limited-government agenda passed with only very limited conservative success.

The state is growing again—and it is pre-programmed to carry on growing. Health spending will rise, pension spending will rise, and taxes will rise.

Now I still continue to hope that the Republican Party will lean against these trends. But there’s a big difference between being the party of less government and a party of small government. It’s one thing to try to slow down opponents as they try to enact their vision of society into law. It’s a very different thing to have a vision of one’s own.

And the day in which we could look to the GOP to have an affirmative small-government vision of its own has I think definitively passed."

Here's the thing: George Bush may have followed Ronald Reagan, but the hearts of the GOP still belong to the Gipper -- at least on domestic issues. Although Bush has managed to revolutionize the way conservatives view foreign policy, conservatives have utterly rejected his, "big government Republicanism."

Of course, that hasn't always been apparent for a number of reasons. In 2000, Bush may have run as a, "compassionate conservative," but Republicans simply didn't understand that meant he'd be spending money like Ted Kennedy. Then in 2004, the election ended up being all about foreign policy, not big government.

But, today? Bush's domestic policy on issues like illegal immigration and spending are finally front and center and it's no coincidence that most polls, slanted to the left though they may be, show his approval rating in the low thirties.

That doesn't mean Bush is the only Rockefeller Republican out there. He has plenty of Republican comrades, especially in the Senate. But unfortunately, that's just the nature of the beast. You're going to have trouble getting Reagan Republicans elected in the most liberal states.

Plus, let's face it: our system is geared to reward big spenders. You bring a pork project home to your district or throw some swag to a constituency group and they'll give you pats on the back, campaign contributions, and votes. You take away their loot and those same groups will claim you're a racist, sexist, child hating, hate mongerer who wants old people to starve.

On the other hand, you get very little credit for saving the taxpayers money because the budget is so out of control, that even 10 million, 50 million, or 100 million dollar cuts seem like small potatoes. But, here's the thing: that turned out to be just as true in the mid-nineties. Hot issues come and go and when small government and balancing the budget start becoming less of a priority to the American people, inevitably political pressure leads to wildly ballooning spending. That's really why Gingrich and Company couldn't sustain their momentum.

It's all cyclical and in my opinion, nothing short of a Balanced Budget Amendment of some sort will change that over the long haul. The good news? People are getting so upset with the way that Bush and Congress are spending money that we're getting to the point in the cycle where we may soon have a shot at getting spending controls enacted. That means those of us in the small government crowd may look like we're down for the count, but in reality, we're like Jason at Crystal Lake. Just when you think we're gone for good, we always find a way to spring back to life.

Like a lot of liberals, economist Charles Wheelan simply cannot wrap his mind around the concept of the Laffer Curve.

In his latest column, Charles Wheeler explains why cutting taxes absolutely, positively, cannot lead to more revenue flowing into the treasury as a result of the economy being stimulated:

"Economist Arthur Laffer made a very interesting supposition: If tax rates are high enough, then cutting taxes might actually generate more revenue for the government, or at least pay for themselves. (In one of life's great coincidences, he first sketched a graph of this idea on Dick Cheney's cocktail napkin.) If the government cuts taxes, then Uncle Sam gets a smaller cut of all economic activity -- but reducing taxes also generates new economic activity. Laffer reasoned that, under some circumstances, a tax cut would stimulate so much new economic activity that the government would end up with more in its coffers -- by taking a smaller slice of a much larger pie.

...Think about a simple numerical example: Assume you've got a $10 trillion economy and an average tax rate of 30 percent. So the government takes $3 trillion.

Let's cut the average tax rate to 25 percent and, for the sake of example, assume that it generates $1 trillion in new economic growth (a Herculean assumption, by the way). So now, what does Uncle Sam get? One quarter of $11 trillion is only $2.75 trillion. The economy grows, government revenues shrink.

That's basically what happened with the large Reagan and George W. Bush tax cuts, both of which were followed by large budget deficits. Yes, spending has a lot to do with that, but the bottom line is unequivocal: In both cases, government revenue was lower than it would have been without the tax cuts.

...Neither the Reagan nor the George W. Bush tax cuts were "self-financing," as the Laffer disciples like to argue.

...Let me be perfectly clear: I'm not arguing that tax cuts are bad. I'm simply pointing out that we can't pretend that tax cuts won't require reductions on the spending side to balance the budget."

That all sounds very nice and very convincing, except for one thing: after the Bush and Reagan tax cuts, the amount of revenue coming into the treasury didn't go down, it went up.

But, this never seems to make a dent in liberal thinking. It's like:

Liberal: We've got to pay for these tax cuts!

Conservative: Why? Revenue went up after the tax cuts.

Liberal: That's impossible!

Conservative: But, it did. Just look at the numbers.

Liberal: The tax cuts are driving up the deficit!

Conservative: How can that be when revenues went up after the tax cuts?

Liberal: There is a consensus among liberal economists that the Laffer curve won't work at our current tax rate. You see...

Conservative: Stop there. Could we conceivably get to the point where cutting taxes doesn't increase revenue? Sure. But, are we there yet? Apparently not, because revenues went up after the tax cuts.

Liberal: You conservatives just won't see reason!

These guys just will not let stubborn facts get in the way of a liberal theory.

PS: Charles Wheeler wrote an entire column on the Laffer Curve and judging by this excerpt from his article, he doesn't even have the most basic understanding of how it's supposed to work:

"In fact, you can disregard every other argument in this column and think about one thing: If Laffer were right, lower taxes would never require any spending sacrifice. We could pay a mere one percent of our income in taxes and still fund all of our government spending -- and maybe more! Do you think that's really possible?"

What Wheeler wrote there would be embarrassing if it came from an 18 year old taking his first economics class. All you have to do is look at the Laffer Curve to see that Wheeler's assertion about it is completely incorrect:

Note how the revenue generated drops as the tax rate passes the maximum revenue point and gets closer to zero? Laffer's argument isn't that tax cuts will always generate more revenue, it's that reducing the tax burden will generate more revenue if taxes are too high. Obviously, if taxes are already too low, cutting taxes further will reduce revenue.

Rod Dreher seems like a nice enough guy and his book, Crunchy Cons: How Birkenstocked Burkeans, Gun-Loving Organic Gardeners, Evangelical Free-Range Farmers, Hip Homeschooling Mamas, Right-Wing Nature Lovers, and Their Diverse Tribe of Countercultural Conservatives Plan to Save America (or at least the Republican Party) was actually advertised on RWN, but to tell you the truth, I really just don't get the whole Crunchy Conservatism concept.

As a matter of fact, I just read an entire 4 page article on Dreher and Crunchy Conservatism at the WAPO and it was like traveling through a fog bank -- which regrettably, was about the same experience that I had every time I read the now defunct Crunchy Con blog over at National Review. It's all so esoteric and philosophical, that even if you read the mildly insulting (to mainstream conservatives) Crunchy Con Manifesto, you'll still be completely confused about what they're supposed to believe.

That being said, as far as I can tell, "Crunchy Cons" are supposed to be conservatives who like natural foods, don't like urban sprawl, and are somehow or another, more "spiritual" than other conservatives. There also seems to be a sort of anti-materialistic strain to Crunchy Conservatism, but, let's face it: how many truly non-materialistic people are there in this country? In my book, if you're not some Buddhist who owns nothing but the clothes on his back, a prayer mat, and a rice bowl, you're a materialist. It's just a question of degree.

But in any case, this brings up a central question: does Crunchy Conservatism exist in any meaningful sense? Honestly, I'd have to say, "no."

That's because, despite the many similarities conservatives have, we're not all "mind numbed" robots who hold exactly the same position on every issue, enjoy exactly the same things, and look at life through exactly the same lens. If every conservative took the handful of differences he had with his fellow conservatives and created a whole new "brand" of conservatism out of it, there would be tens of thousands of little subgroups that would spring up, each one with a handful of "unique" characteristics. But, if we had "Dungeons and Dragons Conservatives" and "Nascar Conservatives" and "Mountain Conservatives" and "Beach Conservatives" and "Homemade Beer Makin' Conservatives" and a thousand other made-up niches to go along with the Crunchy Conservatives, what purpose would it really serve in the end...well, other than to sell books explaining to everyone the unique views of conservative group #789 out of 21,412?

Again, Dreher seems to be a likable guy and there are certainly some people out there who share an ideological cubbyhole with him, but yet and still, I just don't think his "Crunchy Conservatism" is distinctive enough to be treated as a separate branch of conservatism.

Surely, the Democrats couldn't be this thickheaded:

"After months of relative quiet, senators raised the prospect yesterday of a return to bitter battles and a possible filibuster over judicial nominations, as the White House urged confirmation of two conservative nominees who have sought approval for years.

Democratic leaders said they certainly would filibuster one of the nominees, Terrence W. Boyle, and might filibuster the second, Brett Kavanaugh, if Republicans refuse to call him back for a second hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The partisan rhetoric was the strongest signal yet that the Senate might revisit the brinkmanship that brought the chamber to the edge of crisis a year ago, when a bipartisan group of 14 members crafted a temporary cease-fire.

The "Gang of 14" pact cleared the path for confirmation of several appellate court nominees whom Democrats had filibustered in President Bush's first term, and it doomed the chances of a few others. It also narrowed the Democrats' tactical options for opposing Bush's two appointees to the Supreme Court last year. But the Kavanaugh and Boyle nominations may test its resiliency."

The "Gang of 14" compromise was dumb, dumb, dumb for the GOP. Republicans were handed a golden opportunity to take judicial filibusters off the table and John McCain and the rest of the "Team RINO" crew up in the Senate blew it.

But, here's the rub: the deal is no longer applicable after November and if, as expected (or at least, as I expect right now), the GOP loses seats, but not the Senate, the Democrats will be able to filibuster until their heart's content and the GOP may simply not have the votes needed to implement the nuclear option.

Keep in mind that 4 of the 6 Republican seats that currently look to be in danger are Senators who would have voted for the nuclear option last time around (Santorum, Burns, Talent, and Frist's seat will be open). If, let's say, 3 of those seats were to disappear without replacements, it seems unlikely that the GOP could muster the 50 votes needed for the "Constitutional Option" next year.

So, it would be a godsend if the Democrats were actually foolish enough to filibuster a nominee before November, when DeWine, Graham, and McCain would likely flip their votes and bring the total up to 51 votes. That's why the GOP should use some strategery and refuse to compromise in any way, shape or form on Boyle and Kavanaugh in hopes that they can bait the Dems into filibustering before the numbers in the Senate are likely to shift to their advantage.

Know what this latest pork ridden Senate Bill is for President Bush? It's an opportunity:

"A must-pass Senate bill funding the war in Iraq and hurricane aid for the Gulf Coast faces a vote Thursday, but a veto threat imperils many provisions added by lawmakers.

The bill is now about $14 billion more than President Bush wants. That means items such as $4 billion in farm disaster aid and $1 billion in state grants not requested by Bush may have to be dropped during House-Senate negotiations.

Also at risk are Senate add-ons such as $1.1 billion in aid to the Gulf Coast seafood industry; $648 million for port security; and $1.9 billion to secure U.S. borders and waters. In trouble, too, may be Bush's effort to boost the budget for New Orleans flood control projects to $3.7 billion."

Bush has promised to veto this bill and he should do exactly that after explaining to the American people that he has a new attitude about wasteful spending.

Will that suddenly convince the public that Bush is now serious about taking care of their money? No, not after the record on deficit spending he has compiled up to this point. However, if Bush were to veto another 3 or 4 earmark ridden bills, as close together as possible, that might be enough to make a real impression.

W. desperately needs to turn around his spendthrift reputation and although this veto alone won't do it, it would be a big step in the right direction.

Zacarias Moussaoui: "America, You Lost! I Won."

Moussaoui Gets Life in Prison

Acrimony Over Bush Judicial Nominations Resurfaces (Free WAPO Reg Reeq)

Nifong To Remain Durham’s DA

Initial DNA Test Results May Not Tell Whole Story, DA Says

St. Luke's To Continue Care Of Heart Patient. Decision Eases Uncertainty After Transfer To Chicago Falls Through

House Bill: English Only For Pledge, Nat'l Anthem. Resolution Result Of Recent Recording Of 'Star Spangled Banner' In Spanish

President Bush Sang The National Anthem In Spanish

Judge Orders San Diego Cross Removed. Gives City 90 Days In Case Brought By ACLU-Backed Atheist

Soda Distributors to End Most School Sales

2006 Senate Race Rankings

15 Iraqis Killed By Suicide Bomber

Bush, Merkel In United Front On Iran Nuke Plans. Western Powers Offer New U.N. Resolution That Could Trigger Sanctions

Mexico President Refuses To Sign Drug Bill (Holy Flip Flop Batman)

Tony Blankley: Immigration Madness

Jonah Goldberg: Is Bush The New Nixon?

Robert Novak: RNC Chairman Warns Of Possible GOP Catastrophe

Ann Coulter: Tuition Soars Due To Knowledge Shortfall

James Lileks: Gas Fumes Obscure GOP Base

Television Host Louis Rukeyser Dies (RIP Louis)

John Hawkins Of Right Wing News Deserves An Awful Lot Of Credit For This One Because Without Him, Odds Are That (Andrea Clark) Would Be Be Dead Now (Thanks For The Compliment)

A Faulty Sunbed Shocked A Woman Unconscious And Left Her With 65% Burn

Humor: In My World -- Colbert, Iran, And Something That Rhymes With "Jew"

Website Of The Day: Freeman Hunt

Today, I was in on a blogger teleconference with Ken Cohen, Vice President of Public Affairs at ExxonMobil. I actually had to move on at the one hour mark, but Cohen was still going, which is kind of unusual. But maybe that's because Cohen has probably never been on the line with a group of people who were so positive and supportive of Exxon outside of his own shareholders. The Human Events guys were even giving him advice on how to better get Exxon's side of things out to the general public. It was viva la capitalism all the way, baby!

Here are a few factoids (These are from my notes and they're not quotations) from Ken Cohen that you might find interesting:

-- Why are gas prices so high? Unprecedented economic growth in Asia and instability in nations like Venezuela have a lot to do with it.

-- Why do costs change so fast at convenience stores? It's because they base their prices on the next shipment of oil that they're scheduled to get.

-- There are 17 fuel blends and they reduce flexibility and make it difficult to cover shortages caused by equipment problems. Had Bush not waived those requirements after Hurricane Katrina, there could have been shortages.

-- With all the refinery expansion going on, it's possible we could actually go from having a shortage to having an excess of supply in a few years.

-- He has no idea how long it will be until we get cheap gas again.

-- ExxonMobil is currently working on pumping out heavy oil and shale and we do have abundant shale oil resources in the US. But, it doesn't sound like the technology is ready yet.

-- ExxonMobil was a big investor in solar power in the 70's and 80's, but they got out of it because they didn't think it could be anything more than a niche alternative. That's still the case and unless there is a big leap forward in solar technology, it's never going to be an important part of meeting our energy needs.

-- Ken Cohen has been with ExxonMobil for 30 years. There has been some sort of price gouging allegation, somewhere, every year he's been with the company, but ExxonMobil has never price gouged. The reason that there are allegations now is because prices are high and it's an election year. ExxonMobil will testify if Congress asks, but they will find there has been no price gouging.

-- Last year, ExxonMobil grossed $371 billion dollars worldwide and paid out almost a $100 billion dollars in taxes across the world. Their profits in the US during that time period were $11.3 billion and they paid out $14.4 billion in taxes. In the 1st quarter of 2006, ExxonMobil earned 2.3 billion profit in the US and paid out $3.7 in US taxes. On the fortune 500, ExxonMobil ranks number 116 in profit margin.

Other bloggers commenting include:

Captain's Quarters
Hugh Hewitt
Suitably Flip
Polipundit
Wizbang
National Center Blog

The data showing that Americans prefer a tough approach to illegal immigration just keeps on coming. Just take a look at this Zogby survey (yeah, I know it's Zogby and you have to take his polls with a grain of salt, but still....) which actually allows Americans to choose between the Senate and the House bills:

The striking thing about this is that a majority of men, women, Hispanics, blacks, whites, conservatives, liberals, rich people, and poor people all support the House approach -- and yet we have President Bush and these RINOS in the Senate teaming up with the overwhelming majority of Democrats and going, "Dur dur dur dur! Let's do something different! It'll be fun!"

Let's face it, folks, this is about the closest thing to a universal consensus that you're ever going to see in the American body politic and here we are, in an election year, and we have a majority of the Senate and the President saying, "We don't care what you think!"

And they wonder why the American people seem so upset with Washington right now.

Now this is a fun concept:

"...(S)everal other celebrities got zinged in a recent poll that asked participants to pick "celebrities we'd least like to fly with."

Model, actress and sex tape star Paris Hilton took "top" honors from 26 percent of people who responded to the survey...

...Sitting in second place with 23 percent: Tom Cruise, whose infamous couch jumping antics on the "Oprah Winfrey Show" last year should probably serve as a warning for more than his suitability as a seatmate."

Now if I were coming up with a list of people I didn't want to fly with, in no particular order, they'd include:

Robert Byrd: During the walk to the plane, it would be a lot of work to try to scare the circling buzzards away from him. Plus, what if one of the flight attendants was black? He might freak out and it could be a real bad scene.

Cynthia McKinney: If one of the flight attendants gave you peanuts before she got them, she'd probably accuse him of racism and slug him -- again, it would be a real bad scene.

Bill Maher: The guy seems to love the sound of his own voice so much that he just wouldn't shut up long enough to let you go to sleep. Yap, yap, yap, yap, yap!

Ted Kennedy: You know he'd be pounding down scotch, drooling on your arm, and trying to tell you stories, "Did you know I got a dog named Splash, buddy? Har, har, har!" No, thank you.

George Clooney: "Did you know I was once voted sexiest man alive? Would you like an autograph, buddy? Of course, you would! Hey, did you know Hollywood actors like me have always been very involved in social activism? Of course, you didn't! Let me educate you. It all started back in the 1920s with ...."

Al Gore: First of all, you'd never know if you'd be talking to angry Al Gore or robotic Al Gore. Plus, he'd be all upset because we were flying in a plane, and that might cause global warming to occur in 2186 instead of 2185. And let's face it, it's not as if anyone really wants to have a conversation with Al Gore about anything anyway.

Michael Jackson: Because the last thing anyone wants to do is fall asleep, wake up with Michael Jackson looking at you, and hear him say, "I was just imagining you were a young boy. Why don't you go back to sleep?"

John Kerry: He'd ask to have his food served first, because he served in Vietnam and then he'd ask for fish, flip flop and ask for chicken, and then go back to fish. It would be no fun whatsoever.

People often say that the blogosphere is "self-correcting" and that's true -- for the right side. On the other hand, the left side of the blogosphere is a fountain of misinformation. The left gets it wrong over and over and over again, day in and day out, and as long as the story reflects badly on Republicans, it's "too good to check."

For example, take this snippet from a post at The Talking Dog about the extension of Bush's tax cuts:

"The GOP official statement is that it is believed that these regressive, non-stimulative asinine tax cuts will "stimulate the economy" which, of course, they haven't done yet... more likely, they will do little or nothing-- perhaps a few jobs may be credited against ballooning the already gigantic federal deficit to create them."

This conforms quite well with the many incorrect preconceptions that Democrats have about tax cuts, but it's completely unrelated to what has actually transpired.

For example, consider the claim that the tax cuts haven't stimulated the economy. The tax cuts were approved in 2003 and the economy has been thriving ever since.

In mid-2003, the jobless rate was 6.4% But, today? The jobless rate is at 4.7% and still dropping.

Thank you, Bush tax cuts!

Take a look at GDP as well. Since the tax cuts have gone into effect, the GDP has grown at a significantly higher rate than the average for the 80s or 90s.

In the 80s, the average growth was +2.9%. In the 90s, average growth was +3.1%. In 2004, it was 4.2%. In 2005, it was 3.5%. Know what the GDP growth was last quarter? +4.8%.

Thank you, Bush tax cuts!

Then, the Talking Dog goes on to blame the tax cuts for increasing the deficit. Sorry, buddy, but once again you're absolutely wrong. The deficits have been caused by spending increases, not tax cuts. As a matter of fact, the tax cuts have actually INCREASED the amount of revenue flowing into the treasury, as Bill Frist so ably pointed out.

"Many people in Washington have long known a dirty little secret about tax-cut measures: When done right, they actually result in more money for the government.

Ever since the Senate approved the last major tax relief bill, in 2003, revenues have increased every year. In 2004, they went up 5.5%. Last year, they rose 14.5%, the largest increase in nearly 25 years.

Total government collections, in fact, increased more after President Bush's 2003 tax cuts than they did after President Clinton's 1994 tax hikes."

So, the tax cuts stimulated economic growth and produced more tax revenue for the government?

Thank you, Bush tax cuts!

Let's hope that one day, the left is honest enough to give Bush the credit he deserves for his magnificently timed and extremely effective tax cuts.

Here's a rare bird: an online poll that Republicans in Washington would be wise to heed. It's from Polipundit, a mainstream conservative website that draws exactly the sort of people who normally vote for a straight Republican ticket, donate to campaigns, put up yard signs, talk up Bush to their neighbors, and do all the other things that have helped make the GOP successful.

Now, take a look at this poll on illegal immigration from Polipundit:

First of all, when your own supporters are so angry that they're suggesting that you "should go %$#*&*" yourself in a poll question, that's a really bad sign.

Secondly, it's an even worse sign when 92% of the people replying to that poll -- and again we're talking about people who are your supporters -- are agreeing that yes, you "should go %$#*&*" yourself.

Now you don't have to be Michael Barone or Karl Rove to interpret those poll results; if you're soft on illegal immigration those numbers are bad, very, very bad.

Same goes for the results of an election that occurred yesterday in Herndon, Virginia. That election turned on illegal immigration and as you're about to see, things didn't work out so well for the pro-illegal crowd.

"Herndon voters yesterday unseated the mayor and two Town Council members who supported a bitterly debated day-labor center for immigrant workers in a contest that emerged as a mini-referendum on the turbulent national issue of illegal immigration.

Residents replaced the incumbents with challengers who immediately called for significant changes at the center. Some want to bar public funds from being spent on the facility or restrict it to workers living in the country legally. Others want it moved to an industrial site away from the residential neighborhood where it is located.

The labor center forced the western Fairfax County town into the national spotlight last summer as the immigration debate grew deeply contentious. Even though fewer than 3,000 people voted yesterday, advocates on both sides of the issue looked at the Herndon election as a test of public sentiment. Outside groups such as the Minuteman Project, which opposes illegal immigration, intervened in the debate, and Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group, is suing the town over the establishment of the center.

The council voted 5 to 2 last August to establish the center, but yesterday's vote created an apparent 6 to 1 majority in opposition."

All I can say is that George Bush and the Republicans in the Senate who are soft on illegal immigration better start thinking hard about what the ramifications of their position will be at the ballot box in November. As it is, things aren't looking so hot and unless there are big changes in the Senate GOP's pro-illegals stance, the situation seems unlikely to improve.

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin for the article on the Herndon, Virginia election.

"We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe - without swords, without guns, without conquests. The fifty million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.

"Allah mobilizes the Muslim nation of Turkey, and adds it to the European Union."

[…]

"That's another 50 million Muslims. There will be 100 million Muslims in Europe. Albania, which is a Muslim country, has already entered the E.U."

[…]

"Bosnia, which is a Muslim country, has already entered the E.U. Fifty percent of its citizens are Muslims."

[...]

"Europe is in a predicament, and so is America. They should agree to become Islamic in the course of time, or else declare war on the Muslims." -- Libyan Leader Mu'ammar Al-Qadhafi

US Senate To Make New Try At Immigration Law After Huge Protests

Republicans Set Sights On Aliens' Employers

Tom Tancredo Pushes On

Aides Say GOP Lawmakers Near Tax Bill Deal

John Bolton To Kucinich On Sy Hersh’s Piece: “I Don’t Have Time To Read Much Fiction”

Mary Cheney Says Her Father Said Exactly What She Wanted To Hear When She Told Him She Was Gay

Iran Will Hit Israel If US Does "Evil": Agency

Iran 'Boosts' Uranium Enrichment

US Could Seek Iran Sanctions Outside UN: Bolton

Top Al-Qaida Leader Captured in Pakistan

Taliban Threat Is Said To Grow In Afghan South (Free New York Times Reg Req)

Baghdad Neighborhood Rises Up And Fights Back

Italian Leader Berlusconi Resigns

Mexico's Fox To OK Drug Decriminalization Law

Heather Mac Donald: Illegal Immigration Myths

Shelby Steele: Why Is America So Delicate With The Enemy?

Austin Bay: Why Zarqawi Is All Alone

Humberto Fontova: Movie Critics Aghast At Andy Garcia’s The Lost City

Brendan O'Neill: The Shocking Truth About Osama Bin Laden. Apparently, He Reads Our Blogs

Wendy McElroy: False Rape Accusations May Be More Common Than Thought

Poll Shows Many Can't Find La. On Map

Give A Hero His Due

Couple, 33 And 104, Reportedly Marry

Electronic Road Signs And Me

Man Glued To Toilet At Wal-Mart

Website Of The Day: Potfry

If you want to see how far around the bend the left-wing blogosphere is, just take a look at this post over at Seeing the Forest -- the sinister cover-up of Steven Colbert's stand-up routine at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner.

Now, before we get started, you're probably thinking, "Did he just use the words stand-up "sinister cover-up" and "stand-up routine" in the same sentence? Come on, Hawkins, the left can't possibly be that wacky!"

Don't buy it? Well, let's fisk a fairly typical piece about the evil, Reich-wing media's "intentional blackout" of -- again, I can't believe I'm actually writing this -- Steven Colbert's stand-up routine that was published at Seeing the Forest.

Seeing the Forest points out that Don Imus got a lot of attention for ripping Clinton at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner in 1996 and then opines:

The only way to describe the press response is: intentional blackout. The New York Times, for example, wrote an article about the dinner and did not mention Colbert in the article at all. A scan of Google News finds almost no coverage outside of the blogs.

To begin with, after doing my own "scan of Google News," I noticed that the Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, MSNBC, and CBS among many other MSM sources mentioned Colbert's performance. What does he expect? Screaming front page headlines that read, "Comedian Mocks Bush?"

Believe it or not, things get even more delusional from there:

"Why is there such an obvious difference in the coverage given Bush in general, compared to the coverage given Clinton? The press coverage of President Clinton led to his impeachment, even when all of the Republican-initiated investigations found he had done nothing wrong. In contrast the press continues its blackout of coverage or even discussion of possible crimes committed by President Bush."

First off, I'm not going to reargue the whole Clinton impeachment, but the end result of the "Republican-initiated investigations" wasn't a determination that Clinton "had done nothing wrong." Clinton admitted that he lied under oath (which is generally called "perjury," when we lesser mortals do it) and he lost his law license for 5 years.

As far as the media and Bush goes, they have ceaselessly, tirelessly, monotonously hammered away at him day in and day out for not finding WMDS in Iraq, Katrina, The Plame affair, "Mission Accomplished," the "16 words," the insurgency in Iraq, and any and every other issue du jour that the Democratic Party sees fit to bring up. For every positive story about Bush, there are a half dozen negative ones, and yet, the only thing you ever hear from the left is that the media is slanted the other way. It's like a pro-football game, where the left starts the game with 35 points, and then spends the rest of the game complaining they can't get a fair break.

But, moving on:

"In 1987 Ronald Reagan ordered the FCC to abolish the Fairness Doctrine, which required broadcast media to provide balanced coverage of issues. Majorities in the Congress voted to restore the Fairness Doctrine and were blocked by Republican vetoes and filibusters. (Any time you hear a Republican complain about the "liberal media" ask them why it is Republicans, not Democrats, who oppose the Fairness Doctrine.) Following that, Republicans began to allow fewer and fewer large corporations to control more and more of these information channels. (PLEASE click the links. More here and here.)"

There's a very simple reason why conservatives oppose the fairness doctrine: it's because it would destroy talk radio. Reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine would mean that if a radio station put a conservative cash machine, like Rush Limbaugh, on the air for 3 hours, they'd also have to give a liberal host who can't draw flies, like Al Franken or Randi Rhodes, a matching 3 hours. That's like telling Nike, "For every pair of $120 tennis shoes you make, you've also got to make a pair of pink and plaid, mismatched cleats that can be sold at the same price." If you start forcing these talk radio stations to put liberals who have proven that they can't draw an audience on the air (See Air America), then they're just as likely to drop the format and start playing music. But of course, although they won't admit it, that's exactly what proponents of the Fairness Doctrine want to see happen.

Seeing the Forestthen complains that the Fairness Doctrine prevents liberals from getting on the air, which of course, isn't true at all. The fact that they can't get anyone to listen to them prevents them from getting on the air. He then goes on to say:

"It used to be considered essential to democracy that the public had access to information. The pubic used to have the right to demand diversity of opinion in the media. Now even expressing such ideas is banned.

Do you think "banned" is too strong a word? Tell me when was the last time you saw or heard these viewpoints expressed? When was the last time you heard a representative of Labor expressing that employees should join unions?"

Hmmm. Isn't this a self-refuting sentence?

"It used to be considered essential to democracy that the public had access to information. The pubic used to have the right to demand diversity of opinion in the media. Now even expressing such ideas is banned."

If it's banned, how can that idea be expressed on Seeing the Forest? If the right-wing is scared to have people exposed to that idea, why am I posting it right now?

Moreover, how can anyone informed enough to figure out how to create a blog possibly believe that there isn't a "diversity of opinion in the media?" There is actually more diversity than ever before. There was a time when most Americans got their news from their daily paper and the big 3 networks. But now, there's CNN, MSNBC, Fox, talk radio, and countless websites, from nations all over the world, that represent every view under the sun....which is the real problem liberals have with the media these days. The American people can CHOOSE to watch Fox. The American people can CHOOSE to listen to conservative talk radio. The American people can CHOOSE to get their information from conservative blogs. And guess what? The American people do make those choices and it frustrates liberals to no end, because they can't set the agenda and define the terms of the debate in the same way that they used to, even a decade ago. That's what has them really freaked out, not any phony baloney MSM bias to the right or any imaginary "intentional blackout(s)" that only exist in the minds of liberals.

-- Europe's attempts to negotiate with Iran have failed utterly and completely. Iran's foreign minister has said that "Russia and China had officially informed Tehran they would not support sanctions or military action." That means effective action via the UN is out. So, isn't it fair to say that we have exhausted all diplomatic options at this point?

-- Speaking of other options in Iran, the son of the Shah of Iran has long been agitating for Democracy in Iran, but I've never heard him talk this big before. From his interview with Human Events:

So what you see happening is a general strike, people going into the streets, refusing to work, calling for the overthrow of the regime, and then their being backed—

Sustained. Sustained.

And then being sustained by significant elements of the Revolutionary Guards who say, “You’re gone”?

And I’m talking about a blitzkrieg of media supporting, like the BBC did before the revolution, which was practically announcing the night before where there would be a demonstration the next day. This is not myth, it is fact.

Are you in contact with some of the commanders of these [elements]?

Absolutely. Absolutely. And in fact, they keep on saying that we are being under-utilized, we have a role to play, we know the time for it, but we cannot just take the initiative. They are in No Man’s Land. You have to understand.

Are you the person who puts together the master plan? Are you the commander-in-chief of this counteraction?

Look, I think I can be effective, and the reason I have stayed behind until now was because I wanted to exhaust every avenue of possibility so that the opposition can gather itself and collectively work on a common agenda. Within the next two or three months, we’ll know if the result of two or three years of intense effort is going to pay off.

Two or three months?

Two or three months. This summer.

So, he's essentially saying that he's in contact with part of the Iranian military and he thinks they're going to help the Iranian people engage in a revolution this summer? Let's hope that's not just bluster.

-- I tend to take any statements, pro or con, about the strength of the enemy in Iraq with a grain of salt. But, in the middle of last month, Lt. Gen. John R. Vines was saying that "Zarqawi, al Qaeda are heading out of Iraq. Now, Strategy Page is saying about the same thing:

Without much fanfare or publicity, American and British commandoes have taken apart al Qaeda's operation in Iraq. About the only non-Iraqi al Qaeda leader left in Iraq is military leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a Jordanian.

Add that to this headline...

"Iraq's President Meets With Representatives of 7 Insurgent Groups, Is Hopeful for Settlement"

...and we may be seeing much more progress in Iraq than most people realize.

-- The lefties over at the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America Political Action Committee (IAVA PAC) sent out a huffy press release because this quote about Patrick Murphy, one of their candidates, hit a little too close to home:

Ginny Schrader, Warren's campaign co-chair, wrote in the Sunday Bucks County Courier Times, "Murphy's entire candidacy rests on seven months in Iraq. My husband's granddaughter (and mine by love) has recently married a soldier who did two tours in Iraq. Under the present theory, would two tours in Iraq qualify him to run for the Senate?"

What Schrader said is absolutely true. Having served in the military doesn't necessarily make you better qualified than someone who has never served to be in Congress or for that matter, qualified to serve at all. That doesn't mean service to our country in the military isn't admirable or a significant plus, because it is, but you need more than just a tour of duty to merit being elected to Congress. As far as I'm concerned, if you feature your military service as prominently as say John Kerry did in 2004, then you're probably lagging in a lot of other areas. Politicians who genuinely believe they can win on the issues don't need to go around reminding people they were in the military every 5 minutes or so.

-- Are you looking to donate to some Republicans who actually have a chance to knock off an incumbent Democrat? Then you might want to consider chipping in to Lynn Swann, who's trying to become the next governor of Pennsylvania and Van Taylor, who's trying to win President Bush's home Congressional district. Will they win? Don't know yet, but they're both definitely in the mix and your campaign contributions could help give them a chance to pull it out in the end.

-- Via Instapundit, I note that there is a new book coming out called Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush.

If you ever needed proof that a lot of liberals out there are "I put a pumpkin on my head because it's really a hat" level delusional, then you need look no further than their belief that the White House Press Corp, the New York Times, the LA Times, Chris Matthews, and the rest of the MSM are actually sucking up to George Bush.

Yesterday, the much heralded "day without an (illegal) immigrant" rallies occurred and about the only purpose it served was to remind people why we don't want a bunch of uninvited illegals, rallying in the streets, yelling slogans in Spanish, waving foreign flags, assaulting the police, and demanding the right to break the law with impunity. If only the "day without an (illegal) immigrant" actually featured a "day without an (illegal) immigrant."

In any case, here are some of the pictures from the illegal alien rallies. As you look at them, ask yourself if you really think these illegal aliens should be rewarded by being able to participate in a guest worker program or worse yet, by being allowed to become citizens of the United States.

From Yahoo at the San Ysidro, Calif rally.

From Roger Simon at the LA rally.

From Moxie at the LA rally.

From Freeman Hunt at the Springdale, Arkansas rally.

From Free Republic at the Tucson rally.

A "day without an (illegal) immigrant?" If we went the next hundred years in this country without seeing another illegal immigrant, America would be much better off for it.

*** Update #1 ***: Here are more pics from Michelle Malkin, On the Fence Films, Public Figures... Beware, & Creative Flashes.

I'm scheduled to be on the Tammy Bruce show today at 2:30 PM EST for 10-20 minutes and I'm scheduled to talk about Andrea Clark and illegal immigration. You can listen to it for free, here.

*** Update #1 ***: Tammy and I talked about Iran and illegal immigration for 10 minutes and, as always, she said some very nice things about Right Wing News. Thanks for having me on, Tammy. I really appreciate it!

You know your massive illegal immigration protests are starting to backfire when even Teddy Kennedy is willing to say publicly that “the Star Spangled Banner ought to be sung in English. Period.” -- Charles Johnson

What would a day without illegal aliens really be like? Let’s try to imagine it.

...Hospital emergency rooms across the southwest would have about 20-percent fewer patients, and there would be 183,000 fewer people in Colorado without health insurance.

OBGYN wards in Denver would have 24-percent fewer deliveries and Los Angeles’s maternity-ward deliveries would drop by 40 percent and maternity billings to Medi-Cal would drop by 66 percent.

Youth gangs would see their membership drop by 50 percent in many states, and in Phoenix, child-molestation cases would drop by 34 percent and auto theft by 40 percent.

...Colorado taxpayers would save almost $3,000,000 in one day if illegals do not access any public services, because illegal aliens cost the state over $1 billion annually according to the best estimates.

Colorado’s K-12 school classrooms would have 131,000 fewer students if illegal aliens and the children of illegals were to stay home, and Denver high schools’ dropout rate would once again approach the national norm.

Colorado’s jails and prisons would have 10-percent fewer inmates, and Denver and many other towns would not need to build so many new jails to accommodate the overcrowding.

...All of this might be a passing colorful episode in the heated national debate over immigration policy if it weren’t for an odd coincidence: The immigration-enforcement agency responsible for locating and deporting illegal aliens is also taking the day off today. Of course, they didn’t call it a boycott. It is just (non)business as usual.-- Tom Tancredo

Here's an email from Andrea's sister, Melanie Childers, to ProLifeBlogs:

How am I doing? I am doing FABULOUS! My sister, Andrea, is GETTING WELL. Her white blood cell count has been down to normal for the FOURTH day in a ROW now, and she has been able to get off of the blood pressure raising drugs that she has had to be on for MONTHS. She is doing GREAT. Her new doctor ... has also halved the amount of pain medications that she is taking, so that she can talk to her family. He says that her condition is "serious," but that she does have the ability to get much better.

The futility proceedings are stopped now. Because this new doctor took over her case, it is all stopped.

I'm so happy I don't know what to think, or say, or do. Not only is my sister NOT going to be put to death by St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital, but it also looks like she is RECOVERING from her heart surgery, finally.

That sounds like very good news, but there's a caveat that needs to be added to it. Last night, Andrea's lawyer Jerri Ward told me that Andrea COULD be out of the danger zone today, but it would depend on a meeting that's scheduled to be occurring right now at St. Luke's.

If all goes well, Jerri told me that the new doctor would be taking over Andrea's case and that the hospital wouldn't be able to pull the plug as long as he disagreed with the medically futile diagnosis. While she said she hoped that would happen, she thought it was possible that it would not, and she was ready to file papers in Houston to try to stop Andrea's life support from being pulled if necessary.

Jerri promised to let me know what happens as soon as possible after the meeting and of course, when I know, you'll know soon after. So, cross your fingers and let's hope that this case is about to finally be resolved in Andrea's favor.

Also see,

-- Once Again, Time Is Running Out For Andrea Clark
-- St Luke's Reneges: Andrea Clark's Life Is Still In Jeopardy
-- Andrea Clark's Life Has Been Spared
-- Some Good News On The Andrea Clark Front
-- Time Is Running Out For Andrea Clark
-- An Andrea Clarke Update
-- The Sad Case Of Andrea Clarke

*** Update #1 ***: Folks, we have excellent news out of the meeting this morning! According to Jerri Ward, a doctor by the name of Matthew Lenz, who disagrees with the medically futile designation, has taken over Andrea's case and the hospital is cooperating with him. That means Andrea is no longer in danger of having her life support pulled by the hospital.

To everyone who called, put out the word, or did anything at all on this case, great job! You have undoubtedly helped save Andrea's life. Score one for the good guys!

*** Update #2 ***: From Andrea's sister, Lanore Dixon:

"The millions of prayers that have been offered on Andrea's behalf have yielded joyful results! We are delighted to report that St. Luke's hospital has decided to do the right thing and has dropped the futility process that was looming over Andrea's life. A new doctor has taken over her care and is working with a dedicated team of specialists to help Andrea get well. She still has very serious health problems and is facing gallbladder surgery possibly as soon as tomorrow.

Please keep Andrea in your prayers and know that your prayers, calls, emails and letters helped save her life. The family is grateful for all you have done.

Lanore Dixon,
Sister of Andrea Clark

Huge Crowds Of Illegal Immigrants March In Nation's Cities

1500 Illegals Block Traffic And Throw Rocks At Police Officers

Arizona Calls For Crackdown As Immigrants Protest

Rasmussen Polling: 12% Of Americans Favor Amnesty For Illegals. 67% Oppose.

Van Full Of 54 Illegal Immigrants Goes On Wild, Wrong Way Ride In San Diego

Welfare To Kids Of Illegals At $276 Million In LA Alone

Old War Haunts Debate Between Mexico, U.S.

Inside Rush Limbaugh's Road To Recovery

ACLU Fights To Allow Funeral Protests (If It's Bad For America, You Can Count On The ACLU's Support)

Terrorists Massacre 26 In India

Darfur Rebels Frustrate Mediator

Many Basic Functions Of Puerto Rico's Government Were Unavailable Monday As The U.S. Commonwealth Ran Out Of Money And Imposed A Partial Public-Sector Shutdown

Bolivia Moves To Nationalize Gas Industry

Tom Tancredo: A Day Without An Illegal Immigrant (Brilliant)

Mark Krikorian: Boycott & Backlash

John Fund: Not All Immigration Advocates Support Today's Protest

Lou Dobbs: Radical Groups Taking Control Of Immigrant Movement

Rush Limbaugh: It's Over -- The Operative Words are "Not Guilty"

Andrew C. Mccarthy & Mark R. Levin: Rush’s Long Nightmare Is Over. A Shameful Investigation Comes To An End.

Shah of Iran's Heir Plans Overthrow of Regime

New Movie Called 'Soft Core Eco-Terrorism' For Kids

46% Of All Blog Posts Are Written In Japanese Or Chinese

Wife Forced Into "Sex Slave" Agreement? Contract Spells Out "Duties Of Servitude" And Punishment Scale

An Aquatic Theme Park In Australia Has Renamed A Species Of Penguins On Exhibit Lest The Birds' Real Name, Fairy Penguins, Cause Offense To People In The Local Gay Community

Bit Of Finger Mistakenly Served To Diner

Website Of The Day: Lonewacko

From a letter sent out today to Julie Myers, head of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Dear Ms. Myers,

As you are aware, pro-illegal immigration rallies are taking place throughout the United States today. Those organizing the rallies have encouraged illegal aliens to refrain from going to work as a sign of protest.

Too often, we presume that fault lies with the illegal migrant worker, but we need to recognize that the employer broke the law by hiring the illegal alien. We believe the Federal government has an obligation to enforce the nation's immigration laws and must actively investigate any and all instances where it is apparent industries have knowingly and willingly hired those who entered this country illegally.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) should pursue the multiple reports in the news media today regarding companies which have been forced to halt operations because large numbers of their employees appear to be in the United States illegally and are participating in the protest rallies.

ICE has an obligation to use this public information to enforce immigration laws. We respectfully request that you look into this matter and report back to us on your findings.

Thank you for your immediate consideration to this important matter.

Sincerely,

Jack Kingston
Member of Congress

Marsha Blackburn
Member of Congress

Agreed! If a business has so many workers participating in these pro-illegal alien rallies that it can't even keep the doors open, it's a pretty good indication that a large percentage of their work force isn't here legally and ICE needs to look into it. The more of these crooked business owners we go after, the better.

*** Update #1 ***: Congressman John Hostettler is also getting in on the action.

Rasmussen polling put out these eye catching numbers on Thursday:

The survey also asked respondents how they would vote if "a third party candidate ran in 2008 and promised to build a barrier along the Mexican border and make enforcement of immigration law his top priority."

With that option, support fell sharply for both major parties. The Democrats still come out on top with support from 31% of Americans. The third party candidate moved into a virtual tie at 30% while the GOP fell to 21%.

This result probably reflects unhappiness with both parties on the immigration issue rather than a true opportunity for a third party. Historically, issues that drive third party candidates get co-opted by one of the major parties as they demonstrate popular appeal. Most Americans favor a barrier along the border and enforcement of existing law prior to other reforms.

With the immigration issue candidate as an option, 36% of conservative voters opt for the Republican candidate while 35% take the third party option. Among political moderates, 34% pick the Democrat while 32% prefer the third party option.

On Saturday, this news about Jim Gilchrist, the founder of the Minutemen Project came out:

"Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project, is considering a run for president in 2008 representing the Constitution Party.

Gilchrist has just returned from Florida where he met with the party's national committee.

Chairman James Clymer told WorldNetDaily the party was excited about the possibility of Gilchrist as its marquis candidate.

"Yes, indeed, we are interested," Clymer said. "Gilchrist spoke to us last weekend in Tampa and our people asked Jim then if he would be the candidate. We think it would be wonderful if Jim Gilchrist would seriously consider being our presidential candidate."

Gilchrist told WND the only candidate he would support as the Republican Party presidential nominee in 2008 was Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.

"If John McCain enters the race for president," Gilchrist said. "I will definitely run. John McCain should have forfeited his right to run for president on the Republican Party the moment he put his name on immigration legislation with Sen. Ted Kennedy."

Gilchrist and the Constitution Party both agree on the need to secure the southern border with Mexico. Commenting on the street demonstrations planned for tomorrow, Gilchrist said they are nothing more than "a declaration that we are no longer a nation governed by the rule of law, but that we are being ruled by mob rule."

Asked whether he felt President Bush's "guest worker" program or the administration's "pathway to citizenship" were reasonable compromises, Gilchrist reacted sharply: "The Republican Party is going to pay a huge price for pandering to what they think is going to be an illegal-alien vote and for their reckless disregard for the rule of law. The Republican Party has sold out our sovereignty."

Gilchrist told WND that he thought his third-party candidacy could be viable, noting "the country is ready for a third-party candidate, just like the country was ready for Ross Perot in 1992."

Sigh.

First of all, a third-party candidacy isn't really "viable" and even if it were, Gilchrist wouldn't be the one to lead it as evidenced by his 2005 loss in a run for Congress. The work he has done with the Minutemen Project has been fantastic and much appreciated and moreover, we share a lot of the same views about illegal immigration. However, no one can ride the illegal immigration issue alone to the presidency. Tom Tancredo, who has talked about running for President, has acknowledged as much and has said he may run to focus attention on the issue, not because he believes he can win.

In Gilchrist's case, he couldn't possibly win, but because of the depth of feeling on the illegal immigration issue and the pathetic way that a lot of Republicans in the Senate and Bush have handled the issue, it is possible that Gilchrist could drain off enough support from the GOP to put a Democrat in the White House.

That's why it would be foolish for him to run for President. Instead he would be better off throwing his support behind whichever truly "viable" candidate on the Republican side comes closest to his position on illegals. Although Tancredo is the best of the bunch, George Allen and Newt Gingrich aren't bad on illegal immigration either. Also, it's possible some of the governors who get in the game may be ready to crack down on "undocumented workers" as well. That's where Gilchrist can make a difference, not running with a third party that hasn't won anything on the national level and is never going to win anything.

Whatever Gilchrist does, Republicans up on the Hill need to start getting a handle on the depth of feeling this issue is producing in their base. This issue is getting as big as Iraq, as big as deficit spending, as big as abortion, and the GOP better start treating it that way instead of errantly concluding that they can be as soft as they like without having to pay a price. If the GOP in Washington ends up flubbing this issue, it could cost us Congress, in 2006 or 2008, and the presidency in 2008 -- and that's no exaggeration.

Once again, time is running out for Andrea Clark. Starting at 12:01 AM, tomorrow, St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital has made it clear that they may pull Andrea Clark's life support at any time after giving her family a "reasonable" notice. This is despite the fact that the family and Andrea herself do not agree with the diagnosis, oppose pulling the plug, and have found a doctor with privileges at St. Luke's who disagrees with the medically futile ruling.

Andrea's lawyer, Jerri Ward, has set forth the position of the family in a cease and desist letter which I'm about to share with you in it's entirety, per her request.

Dear Sirs and Madam,

As you know, I represent Andrea Clark and her family. On behalf of the family and Andrea, I have been authorized to convey treatment decisions made by the family with regard to her care. Because Andrea is heavily sedated and is limited in her ability to communicate treatment decisions to her physicians and the hospital, the family is empowered under law to make such decisions on her behalf. The family is united in its decision that life-sustaining treatments should NOT be withdrawn or withheld from Andrea Clark pending transfer to another physician or facility.

On behalf of Andrea, the family, acting as a unit, has made the following treatment decisions:

1. Life-sustaining treatment should continue pending transfer as referenced above.

2. Dr. Ron Giveon should, in the exercise of reasonable care, prepare an interim summary of his findings and diagnoses to enable other physicians to have sufficient information in order to make a decision as to whether or not to take on the care of Andrea. It is unconscionable to this family that Andrea's primary attending physician has made himself unavailable to the patient during this trying time-even though he has delegated care to Dr. Tran.

3. It is the family's position that Andrea is not a "futile case". Under the provisions and privacy regulations of HIPAA, the family is entitled to have erroneous information in Andrea's medical chart corrected. Because, it is at least one physician's opinion that a diagnosis of futility and decision that life-sustaining treatments are inappropriate, the family requests, pursuant to HIPAA, that the medical chart be corrected and that the discontinuation of life-sustaining treatments on the basis of inappropriateness not be entered into her chart. The decision that Andrea's case is "futile" has placed seemingly insurmountable obstacles to transferring Andrea's care to other providers. It is repugnant to notions of justice and fairness that Andrea's life be threatened because you have unilaterally determined a disputable outcome that impedes her chances of finding another health provider.

4. The family has decided that the regimen of pain medication be reassessed and the dosage appropriately decreased so that a proper assessment of Andrea's condition can be made by physicians other than the ones to whom this letter is directed.

5. The family withdraws consent and authorization from the attending physicians and the hospital to discuss with, disclose to or elicit opinions from Dr. Robert Carpenter regarding protected health information concerning Andrea Clark. It is the family's opinion that Dr. Carpenter's actions and opinions in this matter are informed solely by his personal philosophies regarding "futile care theories" and that he has not taken an objective approach in this matter. Furthermore, it is the family understands that Dr. Carpenter is an ob-gyn, and not a cardiologist. Thus, the family questions Dr. Carpenter's seemingly active role in affirming treatment decisions of Andrea's treating physicians.

Moreover, it is the family's opinion that Lanore Dixon and Charles Clark were treated with rudeness, insensitivity and disdain during an ethics committee meeting which focused on pain management for Andrea. The family felt that its positions were ignored and ridiculed by Dr. Carpenter. Moreover, the report Dr. Carpenter wrote as a result of that particular ethics committee meeting was rife with misstatements of the facts. For instance, Dr. Carpenter wrote: "…The specific question asked concerning that belief is when, if ever, her sister told her that she wanted to exist in a state of pain and suffering to achieve that goal. That question was never answered." Lanore Dixon strongly disputes this and asserts that she did; indeed, state "that Andrea did tell me that she wanted all measures to be taken to save her life unless she was brain dead."

It is the family's decision and desire that Dr. Carpenter recuse himself from consideration of this case and any decision regarding Andrea's care. The family will be exploring its recourse under the law and under the enforcement mechanisms of HIPAA to this end.

6. The family requests that the ethics committee be convened on a day and time convenient for the family, their attorney and their medical experts to discuss Andrea's care.

7. The family insists that Dr. Carpenter, or any other hospital staff member desist from any attempts to unduly or unreasonably persuade, intimidate or bully any potential treating physician into accepting Dr. Carpenter's opinion that life-sustaining treatments should be withdrawn. The family, again, withdraws any consent or authorization from the parties in this matter for Dr. Carpenter to receive or discuss protected health information regarding Andrea Clark

8. The family insists that it be made privy to any conversations between representatives or case managers and attending physicians or hospital staff and Andrea Clark's insurer regarding matters of coverage. The family is entitled to know if the insurer is placing pressure on the hospital based on its assessments regarding length of stay or any other measure impacting the insurer's willingness to pay.

Furthermore, Andrea Clark has apparently developed a pressure-ulcer while under your care. The family has been informed that the pain that Andrea is experiencing, and which in part is being used to justify withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, is resulting from the pressure ulcer. The family is entitled to evaluate whether or not proper and timely interventions were implemented to prevent Andrea from developing the pressure ulcer. Further, it is the expectation of the family that all necessary and proper treatment be continued to promote healing of the ulcer. It is the position of the family that the attending physicians and hospital have developed a conflict of interest as a result of Andrea's development of a pressure ulcer that should preclude you from making a treatment decision that will inevitably result in her death. Therefore, any action or decision that you make to withdraw life-sustaining treatment is ethically tainted by questions of fact regarding the level of care received by Andrea Clark.

On behalf of the family, I am putting you on notice that the family intends to file pleadings with the appropriate court in order to restrain you from withdrawing life-sustaining treatments. There are numerous questions of fact that should not be solely determined by you with regard to Andrea's treatment. There are fact issues with regard to whether or not the physicians and the hospital have acted with reasonable care in deciding that life-sustaining treatment should be withdrawn. Should you act to withdraw life-sustaining treatment prior to review by an appropriate Court, the family intends file complaints with the appropriate regulatory and licensure entities and to take any available legal action permitted under the law and in equity.

It is the family's opinion that the attending physician and ethics committee have overreached in this case. It should not be your decision as to whether or not Andrea's life is worth living. The family demands that life-sustaining treatments be continued in light of the fact that the family intends to take this matter up with the Court.

Should you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter.

Very truly yours,

Jerri Lynn Ward

Whether Andrea Clark is going to live or die is, at least for the moment, entirely in St. Luke's hands and although they talk a lot about things like love, caring, compassion, and respect for well-being and life," none of those values seem apparent in their treatment of Andrea Clark. That's why it's so very important that you call St. Luke's and ask them to spare Andrea Clark's life. Be polite, don't raise your voice, but do call. Your phone call may literally be the one that saves Andrea Clark's life.

PS: UPI and the Washington Times have now finally picked up this story. Better 5 days late, than never, fellas.

Also see,

-- St Luke's Reneges: Andrea Clark's Life Is Still In Jeopardy
-- Andrea Clark's Life Has Been Spared
-- Some Good News On The Andrea Clark Front
-- Time Is Running Out For Andrea Clark
-- An Andrea Clarke Update
-- The Sad Case Of Andrea Clarke

There has been a lot of talk about the White House Correspondents' dinner. Bush did a little skit with a White House impersonator which got rave reviews and Steven Colbert did a comedy routine that apparently hit a little too close to home for W.. A lot of people on the right are arguing that Colbert was mean spirited and not funny while people on the left are cheering on Colbert for going after Bush.

Know what I say?

Isn't it time for the Bush administration to stop attending these ridiculous joke dinners for the press? After all, the press hates the guts of everyone in the Bush Administration from Bush right on down to the lowliest Republican bureaucrat in the White House. So, why do anything special for people who wish you ill?

Moreover, this whole incident with Colbert isn't the first embarrassing headline to come out of these silly dinners. In 2004, there were complaints about some WMD jokes Bush made at the Radio and Television Correspondents Dinner:

"During the annual Radio and Television Correspondents Dinner this week, Bush presented a slide show of quirky photographs from inside the White House. In one, the president is looking under furniture in the Oval Office.

"Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere," Bush joked. "Nope, no weapons over there ... maybe under here?" (Bush pokes fun at himself at dinner)

Democrats have seized on the matter, calling it astonishingly insensitive when Americans have died for their country in Iraq while the search for WMD has turned up nothing.

...A majority of CNN viewers who have responded by e-mail also said they were offended.

"Seeing our president joke about WMDs at a comedy function was terrible. How can a thinking, caring human being joke about the lie that led to body bags and broken young men and women? I was appalled," wrote Fran in Burlington, Massachusetts."

Then, last year, remember people complaining about Laura Bush's joke at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner?

"I saw my in-laws down at the ranch over Easter. We like it down there. George didn't know much about ranches when we bought the place. Andover and Yale don't have a real strong ranching program. But I'm proud of George. He's learned a lot about ranching since that first year when he tried to milk the horse. What's worse, it was a male horse."

Maybe Bush's people think these correspondents' dinners humanize him because he gets to yuck it up in public, but it's hard to miss that for the 3rd year in a row, there has been some sort of controversy to come out of one of these dinners that has been a net negative for W. That's why the Bush Administration and future Republican Presidents should avoid these dinners and let the press get their jollies elsewhere.

Right Thinking Girl and I talked about Sudan (among other things) last night and RTG gave me permission to reprint our conversation. After I cleaned it up and edited it just a bit, here it is:

Right Thinking Girl: I'm working on my big genocide post about Sudan, but I'm a little disappointed that Clooney has been talking about it so much. It makes me sound like I'm jumping on the bandwagon.

John Hawkins: Getting George Clooney's left-overs huh? lol. I'm of the opinion that Europe should handle it.

Right Thinking Girl: Why?

John Hawkins: Because we're in the middle of running a global war on terror and are supplying the overwhelming majority of the resources and troops. If Europe can't handle something as piddly as Sudan without our help, what good are they?

Right Thinking Girl: Good point. I really do wish something good would come from the celebs talking about it so much.

John Hawkins: If Iraq is a 10 on the difficulty scale, then Sudan is about a 2 or even a 1. Surely France, Spain, Canada, (Germany), etc., are capable to taking care of it without us holding their hand.

Right Thinking Girl: I don't know if it's that easy though...

John Hawkins: I'm sure they might lose some people. But personally, I think there have got to be some countries out there besides us, Britain, (and Australia) that are willing to put a significant amount of our blood and treasure on the line for the good of the world.

Right Thinking Girl: I dunno. I see no proof of that.

John Hawkins: I don't either and that's a problem. I mean if they don't have the will and/or the means to even handle a situation like Sudan, why pay attention to them at all?

Right Thinking Girl: Exactly. They are morally bankrupt and the UN -- this should be perfect for them -- and they've...done nothing.

John Hawkins: We're getting to the point where dealing with countries like France, Spain, Germany, etc, in international crisis is more trouble than it's worth. Basically, we do all the work, and they're like the little girl in the Shake'N'Bake commercials who wants everyone to know that they "helped" (by like getting the chicken out of the fridge or something). But, behind the scenes, they want to be treated like full partners.

Right Thinking Girl: Exactly. Plus we're in the run up to war in Iran and they're suddenly hemming and hawing again. I mean -- IRAN! WITH A NUKE!

John Hawkins: Yeah, there's an old slogan, "Lead, follow, or get out of the way." And they're not doing any of them.

We're dealing with Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, and keeping China away from Taiwan, while simultaneously shouldering the overwhelming majority of the load in the war on terror across the globe and you're telling me that Europe, the UN, and the whole rest of the world combined can't deal with Sudan? Give me a break.

In the past, to inspire people to suggest new music that I might be interested in and just for entertainment's sake, I've posted the music I was currently listening to on RWN. Now, thanks to wonders of modern technology, I can tell you which songs I listened to the most over the last month.

Here's the list for April...

11) Offspring: I Choose
11) Green Day: Boulevard of Broken Dreams
11) Filter: Hey Man Nice Shot
6) U2: It's A Beautiful Day
6) Modest Mouse: Float On
6) Johnny Cash: Hurt
6) Fall Out Boy: Sugar We're Going Down
6) DMX: Bring Your Whole Crew
4) Rob Zombie: Never Gona Stop
4) Lynard Skynard: Sweet Home Alabama
2) Rammstein: Engel
2) Rammstein: Reise Reise
1) Super 16: Neu!

Massive Pro-Illegal Alien Protests Set For Today

Mexico Decriminalizes Small Amounts Of Cocaine & Marijuana

Congress May Consider Mandatory ISP Snooping

U.S. Lawmakers Arrested At Sudanese Embassy Protest. 'We Will Not Watch The Slaughter In Darfur

The New Black Panther Party Says It Will Deal With Lacrosse Players Charged With Rape

Bush Challenges Hundreds Of Laws. President Cites Powers Of His Office

McCain Says "Clean Government" More Important Than First Amendment

Dick Durbin: "Am I The Only One Of Your Guests Here That Think That Profit Taking Is A Problem?" (Socialist)

Bush Lampoons Self at Press Corp Dinner

Colbert Lampoons Bush at White House Correspondents Dinner-- President Does Not Seem Amused

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Is A Psychopath And Anti-Semite Whose Declarations Resemble Those Of Adolf Hitler, Israeli Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert Said

Claim: Israelis Believe Iran Is Only A Year Away From A Nuclear Bomb

Iran Claims Nuclear Project Breakthrough

Iran 'Attacks PKK In Iraq Kurdish Area'

President Jalal Talabani Met Recently With Representatives Of Armed Groups And Is Optimistic They May Agree To Lay Down Their Weapons

CIA Agent Selling Book Claims US 'Allowed Zarqawi To Escape'

Victor Davis Hanson: Our Orphaned Middle East Policy. Things Are Looking Up As Everyone Starts Jumping Ship

Thomas Bray: Government Remains The Biggest Oil Profiteer

Mark Steyn: Where's The Dissent About Source Of Quote?

Mark Steyn: Celebrate Tolerance, Or You're Dead. Oriana Fallaci Appeals To Europe To Save Itself. Good Luck

Fareed Zaharia: Osama Needs More Mud Huts

Debra Saunders: The Great American Turnoff

Robert Novak: Judicial nuclear option? (Pull The Trigger)

Economist John Kenneth Galbraith Dies at 97 (My Condolences Go Out To His Family And Friends)

Mayor Won't Give Dead Marine's Money Back

But Don't Question The Anti-War Protestors Patriotism

The Right Thinking Girl Enemies List

Video: Lazy Sunday -- The UK Response (Lots Of Bad Language)

Website Of The Day: Blue Crab Boulevard