So, back in May, I'm reading Human Events and I notice an article by Jerome Corsi of Swiftboat Veterans for Truth fame. It was called, North American Union to Replace USA?, and it was a hysterical overreaction to a run-of-the-mill report that talked about ways that America, Canada, and Mexico can increase our ties and cooperation.

Here's the Corsi reaction to this very ordinary report:

"President Bush is pursuing a globalist agenda to create a North American Union, effectively erasing our borders with both Mexico and Canada. This was the hidden agenda behind the Bush administration's true open borders policy....Why doesn’t President Bush just tell the truth? His secret agenda is to dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union."

Now, at the time, I sort of rolled my eyes at how ridiculous Corsi's column was, but didn't bother to write about it. After all, if I wrote about every flaky column or post I ran across, I'd be writing 15 articles a day based on the posts from the The Huffington Post alone.

But, little did I know that Corsi's column was to be the first in a series of similarly ludicrous articles by Corsi. Worse yet, the articles turned out to be very popular. Last week, 3 of the Top 10 most read articles at Human Events were part of the Corsi series. I've now gotten multiple emails from my readers asking me about things Corsi has written. Earlier this week, I turned on the radio, and Corsi was even being interviewed on the Michael Savage show.

Yet, Corsi's series is complete nonsense from beginning to end.

For example, his second story in the series claims the American dollar is going to be replaced with the Amero. In it, he wrote this:

"If President Bush had run openly in 2004 on the proposition that a prime objective of his second term was to form the North American Union and to supplant the dollar with the “Amero,” we doubt very much that President Bush would have carried Ohio, let alone half of the Red State majority he needed to win re-election."

What's Corsi's evidence for this silly assertion? A guy by the name of Robert Pastor "was a vice chairman of the CFR task force that produced the report 'Building a North American Union.'" Well apparently, at some point, "Pastor has also called for the creation of a new currency which he has coined the “Amero,” a currency that is proposed to replace the U.S. dollar, the Canadian dollar, and the Mexican peso."

So, the fact that Robert Pastor said that he'd like to see an Amero replace the dollar translates in Corsieese to the "prime objective of (Bush's) second term was to form the North American Union and to supplant the dollar with the “Amero?" This is the sort of logic you expect to see from someone who claims the Illuminati rule the world, not from a conservative columnist.

In another column, Corsi claims that unless something is done, "the North American Union will become a reality in 2010 as planned."

Really? So, President Bush, who will be leaving office in early 2009, will be unilaterally throwing out the Constitution and creating an American, Mexican, and Canadian Super State that would be almost universally opposed by the citizens of the United States? That would be a pretty neat trick to pull off, especially given that Bush can't even arrange to put a group of terrorists in front of a military tribunal without having the Supreme Court get in his way.

Yet, this sort of basic logic seems to be alien to Corsi, who keeps popping out absurd column after column on this topic. He has even managed to write 3 columns about a "NAFTA Super Highway" running from Mexico to Canada. Come on! Who hears someone say, "Oh, they're building a road," and thinks, "It must be part of some sort of secret conspiracy!" It's just a highway, Jerome, it's just a highway.

Ironically, Corsi included these two paragraphs in his June 26, column, "Controversy Erupts Over NASCO and the NAFTA Super-Highway:"

Last Thursday in a radio interview with the 55KRC Morning Show in Cincinnati, Tiffany Melvin, executive director of North America’s SuperCorridor Coalition, told host Jerry Thomas that my June 12 Human Events article on NASCO was “absolutely inaccurate.”

Melvin declined to be interviewed for this article, stating in an e-mail her current priority was to answer the “accusations, bad information, and false assumptions” in the June 12 article. “After I have a chance to get my life back and return to a normal schedule, I will contact you,” she wrote. “In the meantime, I will continue to respond to the inquiries your erroneous reporting has caused.”

You know, those quotes from Tiffany Melvin are just about the only reliable and accurate pieces of information that Corsi has imparted to his readers in the last month and a half. Yet, because Corsi is spreading this rubbish far and wide, there is now actually a Nasco Myths Debunked fact sheet that looks like it was developed to specifically counter the things he has been saying.

Let's cut to the chase here, folks: Corsi's articles amount to a great big sack of nothing. There's just no "there, there" to anything he's saying. I mean this stuff is so ludicrous that the sort of people who believe that the Trilateral Commission secretly controls the whole world would look at it and go, "No, that's just too far fetched."

The President simply cannot arbitrarily combine the US with Mexico and Canada. Even if he could, Bush isn't going to be in office in 2010. Do you think President George Allen or President Newt Gingrich is just going to walk into the Oval Office, see a plan on his desk that says, "US/Mexico/Canada Merger," and go, "Well, it is on the desk, so I guess we'll have to do it." It would take a complete rewrite of the Constitution to make this work, which has absolutely no chance of happening.

All that Corsi has stumbled onto here are a few bureaucratic documents describing how we're going to better cooperate with our neighbors on issues like trade and security, no different than you'd see anywhere else in the world where neighboring nations are trying to get along. It's not frightening, it's not scary, and it's not going to lead to an "Amero" or a "Super State." Take it from someone who has soundly thrashed George Bush's position on immigration, who has defended the Swifties time and time again, and who also writes for Human Events: Corsi's series of articles are completely and utterly without merit.

Over at the Huffington Post, left-wing conspiracy kook Mark Crispin Miller is trying to get an early start on the rest of the, "The election was stolen by the _____ (George Bush, Karl Rove, Ken Blackwell, Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush, VRWC, Diebold, etc., etc., etc., just fill in the blank) crowd:

"Alright, let's pretend, just for the sake of argument, that the Repubs are right, as are most Democrats and the media, when they insist that the election was legitimate. Fine.

We're going to give them one more chance to hold elections that are credible. We're going to throw ourselves into this next election, getting out as many voters as we can.

...And so, when the Repubs win yet again, surprisingly maintaining their control of Congress, notwithstanding their subterranean approval ratings, we will be prepared to note all the anomalies and improprieties -- and, at long last, to SAY NO. As this will have been the fourth election cycle ravaged by Bush/Cheney since 2000, Americans must finally go Ukrainian, and just refuse to acknowledge BushCo's latest "win."

Where that may take us I can't say. But it is something that, it seems to me, we have to do, or else we don't deserve to call ourselves the citizens of a republic."

After the elections of 2000 and 2004, there were hordes of liberals who essentially took this attitude: "We tried really hard and we didn't win, so ergo, the Republicans must have cheated somehow!"

But, Miller has taken it to the next step. It's now, "We're going to try really hard and if we don't win, then ergo, the Republicans must have cheated somehow, so we're going to overthrow the government and put Democrats in charge!"

So here's to you, Mark Crispin Miller! You've taken moonbattery and conspiracy mongering to an even higher level, which undoubtedly, will only draw in more liberals to the Huffington Post. That's why someone should tell Arianna to give you a raise and a new tinfoil hat for doing such a wonderful job, you great big loon, you!

PS: You ever notice that libs always accuse me of cherry picking these stories and say they're not representative of the left, even though I keep turning them up, day in and day out, over and over, on wildly popular liberal blogs and forums?

Hat tip to The Corner for the story.

As most of you have no doubt heard, the Supreme Court has said that Bush doesn't have the authority to make the terrorists at Gitmo face military Tribunals:

"The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that President George W. Bush lacks authority to try Guantanamo Bay inmates before military tribunals, a blow to the administration's anti-terrorism strategy that scales back presidential wartime powers.

The justices, voting 5-3, said Congress hadn't expressly authorized the military commissions. The justices also said the structure and procedures of the tribunals violate both the Geneva Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The ruling is a major political and legal setback for Bush, scuttling plans to try three dozen Guantanamo inmates before tribunals. The ruling also boosts suits challenging the incarceration of hundreds of other detainees."

I don't agree with this decision at all because I believe Commander-in-Chief has the Constitutional authority to deal with foreign prisoners, held outside of the US, as he sees fit, without Congressional oversight. That being said, from what I'm seeing, this may not be the huge setback it's being portrayed as by the press and the Democrats.

For one thing, as Jonathan Adler over at Bench Memos pointed out,

"(T)he Court apparently reaffirmed the executive's authority to detain enemy combatants for the duration of hostilities."

So we can't put them in front of a military tribunal, but we can still hold them indefinitely.

Also, if the reasoning here is supposed to be that Congress hasn't approved of military tribunals, then let's put it up for a vote. My suspicion is that most Democrats would favor putting these terrorists through the American court system, which would mean long drawn out trials, the risk of classified intelligence sources being revealed, and lots of bogus acquittals. On the other hand, Republicans would favor military tribunals, which would sidestep all of those problems.

So basically, we'll have the Democrats who'll be so concerned about the terrorists rights that they'd favor letting them beat the system and get loose to kill more Americans. On the other hand, the Republicans won't be very concerned about the right of foreign terrorists and their first priority will be protecting America. Protecting the rights of Al-Qaeda or protecting America?

Let's put those two views in front of the American people, preferably before the 2006 elections, and then let them make a decision about which Party they trust on National Security.

Update #1: I added the word "bogus" to the third paragraph up from the bottom.

Update #2: From RWN's own comment section on this post:

"You know, what drives me frigging crazy is the "we're in a war" bullsh*t. We're in a war of choice - a boutique war - waged by ethical/moral cretins who hold the highest positions in the land (positions of war-making) thanks to asterisks and technicalities and voting irregularities and other unsavory mishaps...so these f*ckers say "War," and the masses - you - say, "How much, oh dearest? How much blood do ye want?"

Call war; make war rules; ain't no different than anything going on in 1984 or Animal Farm ("some animals are more equal than others...").

Force, decree, demand - these do not a just war make. Or a necessary war. The War on Terror is a farcical exercise in authoritarianism, and happy adherents thereto. Meanwhile, real people suspended above the least semblance of justice die by degrees, in Sh*tf*ck Prison #1, Guantanamo.

Grotesque. You support this, you best not say you support America, or freedom, or liberty. Do NOT say THAT." -- Scrappy

Look at the sort of kooky rants this issue inspires from the left. Are you telling me the GOP wouldn't benefit from having a "knock down drag out" in front of the American public over this issue when lots of people with this sort of mentality are on the other side?

Update #3: Apparently, some of the heavies in the GOP are thinking the same thing that I am. From press releases I've been emailed today:

U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) today issued the following statement on the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the Hamdan case:

"We are disappointed with the Supreme Court’s decision. However, we believe the problems cited by the Court can and should be fixed.

"It is inappropriate to try terrorists in civilian courts. It threatens our national security and places the safety of jurors in danger. For those reasons and others, we believe terrorists should be tried before military commissions.

"In his opinion, Justice Breyer set forth the path to a solution of this problem. He wrote, ‘Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary.’

"We intend to pursue legislation in the Senate granting the Executive Branch the authority to ensure that terrorists can be tried by competent military commissions. Working together, Congress and the administration can draft a fair, suitable, and constitutionally permissible tribunal statute."

From John Cornyn:

“This is a blockbuster decision, and it will take some time to determine the consequences of what the Court said today. But they’ve opened the door to a legislative remedy, and as Congress plays a key role in this debate, we’ll work with the administration to reach a solution.

“We’re not talking about simple criminals—these detainees include the most violent terrorists in the world. And let’s not forget who we’re talking about in this particular case: Hamdan was captured in Afghanistan and is charged with delivering weapons and ammunition to al Qaeda, providing logistical support to bin Laden’s bodyguards and participating in weapons training.

Update #4: From another press release, this time by Jeb Hensarling:

"The Court's decision will impede our nation's ability to wage the War on Terror and reveals a frightening lack of understanding about the enemy that we face," said Hensarling. "We are fighting a transitional network of terrorists with an ideology that calls for the death of Western civilization, not an army. Congress will work with the President to reach an effective solution to this setback."

From the Democratic Underground:

Cyrano: If we lose this year's elections, there may not be an election in 2008. Unless we can win either the house or senate this year, I don't believe we will see a presidential election in 2008. For the past six years, the Bush/Cheney mob and their cohorts in congress have done whatever they wanted to do without any restraints on them.

Two questions: (1)Why would they give up power? (2)Who's going to make them give it up?

These pigs have used power like a kid in a candy shop, they love it, and they can't get enough of it. They can do what they want to, when they want to, and to whomever they want to do it to.

They've proved to us time and again that they have no moral boundaries in their use and abuse of that power. Gee, isn't it great to invade any country you feel like invading? Snoop into anyone's conversations and financial affairs? Being able to detain anyone at will for any reason that pops into your head? Hell, you can even disappear them to one of your undisclosed torture chambers. Want to kill them? No problem.

Enumerating a full list of their abuses of power is virtually impossible as they've been doing it one or more times a day, every single day, for five and a half years now. And those are just the ones we know about.

And let's not forget the words that King George himself uttered. "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, as long as I'm the dictator." Anyone think the sociopath didn't mean those words?

So who's going to make them give up their power? The media? The courts? Don't hold your breath. Can We The People force them to give it up? Aside from all the Audie Murphy types who have a cache of guns and other exotic weapons, I don't think so. King George, Darth Cheney and their henchmen own the police, the military, the means to eavesdrop on us anywhere, anytime, and the ability to infiltrate any group that tries to organize an armed rebellion. Small groups could cause some damage, but doing away with our dictatorship would remain a fantasy.

Everyone who thinks the above scenario isn't possible is fooling themselves. Canceling an election would be no problem for them. A MIHOP incident followed by a declaration of martial law and a "temporary" suspension of elections would be all that would be needed.

So how would they finally be removed from power? Well, the rest of the world might band together and try to overthrow them. But that would result in the launching of every nuclear weapon in our arsenal. The fundies would get their Armageddon.

The other possibility is a military coup. If this were to happen, it would be a tossup of whether the generals would retain power or reestablish the rule of law and what used to be our constitutional government.

So let's hear why you think I'm wrong (or right).

Everyone reading this will probably write Cyrano off as a kook. However, I was at the last meeting of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and I have to tell you that he's onto something.

That's right, all you liberals. In 2008, George Bush is going to engineer a terrorist attack against an American city, preferably a very liberal one. Then, he will declare himself Dictator for Life to deal with the terrorists and all the treasonous people who dare to speak a word against W.

Interesting little detail here, that plan won by one vote. The other plan, put forth by Mark Steyn, was to ignore the Constitution and have Bush run for office again. Then he'd end up beating whoever the Democratic candidate is by 52%-48% in the popular vote and the final electoral count would be 306 to 232. We were planning to have all the states come out the same way as 2004, with slightly different margins, except Wisconsin and Minnesota which we would bring into into the Republican column.

You know, I'm kind of proud that I was the one who suggested, 5 years ago, that we put the secret mind control chips developed by the military in the heads of all the top people running the voting machine companies. I mean, it seems so obvious, right? But, no one had ever suggested it before.

Anyway, the dictator plan won out by one vote over the fraudulent election plan. Ann Coulter was the deciding vote and she thought it would be more fun to actually have Bush become a Dictator for Life and then ruthlessly mock all the liberals for thinking he was a Dictator. It would drive them crazy! Can you just imagine it?

Michael Moore: Bush has taken over the country. He's a fascist dictator who runs America with an iron fist!

Bill O'Reilly: Now come on, Michael, you've been saying that sort of thing for years. Why should we believe you now?

Michael Moore: Because it's true! He actually tells everyone he's a Dictator for Life! There's even a sign on the door of the Oval Office that says, "Dictator for Life, George Bush's Strategery Room!"

Ann Coulter: It's just more liberal lies, Bill.

Michael Moore: No, no, really...it's true this time!

Bill O'Reilly: Come on, Michael, there's no spin allowed on the Factor. You think we're buying that? By the way, some of Bush's goons are waiting to chat with you off stage for criticizing the Dictator for Life so I don't think you'll be able to make the next segment.

Michael Moore: You just called him a Dictator for Life!

Ann Coulter: See, Bill? These sort of Dictator for Life fantasies are why no one trusts the left.

Michael Moore: Is that guy holding a taser? What's the billy club for?

Bill O'Reilly: We've got to go to break. We'll be right back!

Admittedly, that would be more fun than just rigging another close election, but I'm still a fan of the subtle approach. On the other hand, I will be running one of the nicer prison camps. It's on the coast, it has a big budget, and we're even having Haliburton build a fairly large gladiator arena right on the beach. It should be a blast!

Until then, all you Bushbots out there just keep the faith!

(Shhhh...no one tell them I'm kidding. I'm hoping that this will make it onto Infowars, The Jeff Rense Program, or one of the other kook websites!)

The whole Astrologer Jerome/Ko$ola scandal is just the gift that keeps on giving and giving and giving. Today, over at MyDD, a frustrated Chris Bowers lashed out at Democrats and progressives in general for not supporting the liberal netroots. Here's a quote about how netroots are treated on the left that gives you an idea of the flavor of the piece:

"Oh, you left politics and now you actually have money? Well, then give us that money to help our campaigns and be quiet. You found a way to make a living running a blog independent on our organizations? Great--now we'll tell you what to write on that blog so that it helps our campaigns."

So Bowers was blowing off a little steam after a tough week of getting grilled over Jerome Armstrong's foibles. So what's the big deal? Well, near the end of the post, Bowers said this:

"Find some way to support bloggers, or stop asking us to support you. I have been working on the problem of getting more money to bloggers for over a year now. The biggest obstacle I see to it is that progressive donors and progressive organizations are worried that if they fund bloggers, bloggers will eventually say something "crazy," and the organizations and donors in question will end up looking bad. Fine. If that is their rationale, I can live with that. However, don't then go and tell bloggers that they should stop criticizing Democrats and progressive orgs whenever Dems and progressive orgs do something stupid. If you think we are useful, but generally too unstable to deserve regular funding, don't expect us to be quiet when Democrats and progressive organizations do things that make us mad. Don't think you can keep us in relative poverty because you don't like some of the things we say, but also think that we should shut up when we don't like what you say or do."

Two things. First off, you know what this sentence tells you?

"The biggest obstacle I see to it is that progressive donors and progressive organizations are worried that if they fund bloggers, bloggers will eventually say something "crazy," and the organizations and donors in question will end up looking bad."

That behind-the-scenes the "progressive donors and progressive organizations" understand the nature of the left-side of the blogosphere a lot better than people might think.

Second thing, doesn't Bowers seem to openly be asking to be paid off when he says:

"If you think we are useful, but generally too unstable to deserve regular funding, don't expect us to be quiet when Democrats and progressive organizations do things that make us mad. Don't think you can keep us in relative poverty because you don't like some of the things we say, but also think that we should shut up when we don't like what you say or do."

Isn't he plainly saying that if he is paid off on a regular basis, he's willing to stay quiet when he disagrees with the people paying him, but that he won't hold his tongue if they won't give him "protection" money? Doesn't that sound like an open invitation for people to give MyDD cash to make sure nothing negative is written about them on that blog?

It sure looks that way, doesn't it?

"Israeli warplanes buzzed the summer residence of Syrian President Bashar Assad early Wednesday, military officials said, in a message aimed at pressuring the Syrian leader to win the release of a captured Israeli soldier.

The officials said on condition of anonymity that the fighter jets flew over Assad's palace in a low-altitude overnight raid near the Mediterranean port city of Latakia in northwestern Syria. Israeli television reports said four planes were involved, and Assad was home at the time." -- Associated Press

"Russian President Vladimir Putin has ordered special services to "find and destroy" the killers of four Russian diplomats taken hostage in Iraq.

The head of Russia's security services immediately pledged to see Putin's order carried out.

The Russian government confirmed the four men's deaths this week, after an insurgent group released a video showing two of them being killed.

The group had demanded Russia leave Chechnya and release Muslim prisoners.

"The President gave the order to Russian special services to take all measures for finding and eliminating the criminals who carried out the murder of Russian diplomats in Iraq", the Interfax news agency quoted the Kremlin's press service as saying." -- BBC News

Palestinian Terrorists Claim They Fired Chemical-Tipped Warhead

Israeli Warplanes Buzzed The Summer Residence Of Syrian President Bashar Assad Early Wednesday

Russia 'To Kill Iraq Kidnappers'

Israel Finds Body Of Missing Settler

New Bin Laden Audio Tape: Osama Speaks On The Death Of Zarqawi

Senate May Budge On Illegal Immigration (Free LA Times Reg Req)

Arlen Specter Considers Suit Against Bush Over Signing Statement

J.D. Hayworth Looking to Strip Times’ Credentials to Congress

Sen. Jim Bunning: N.Y. Times Committed Treason

Justices Back Most G.O.P. Changes to Texas Districts (Free New York Times Reg Req)

Bush Seeking Reprieve For San Diego Cross

Rasmussen Reports: Most Americans Wild for Walmart. 69% Favor the Super Store

An Interview With Mort Kondracke

Jonah Goldberg: Apparently, The War Can Only Be Fought On Their Terms

Phyllis Schlafly: Hard To Make Sense Of Pence Guest-Worker Plan

Ann Coulter: 12 Down -- Top Secret War Plans, 36 Across -- Treason

An Interview With Ann Coulter

Victor Davis Hanson: Scapegoating Guantanamo

Underwater Volcano Bigger Than Rome Found By Italy

Pregnant Britney Spears Poses Nude For Harper's Bazaar

The Best Post About The Flag Burning Amendment Failing, Ever

Vovak Offers Steele A Deal To Remove Curse

Website Of The Day: Counterterrorism Blog

"Karl, yesterday Ted Kennedy gave a passionate speech on the Senate floor supporting President Bush’s proposal. If you get in bed with Ted Kennedy, you’re going to get more than sleep." -- Congressman Rick Keller's remark to Karl Rove

PS: I know this is actually from May, but I just heard it today and it was too good to ignore.

"There are no bad guys on the left. There are only people who’ve been driven to desperation by conservative evil." -- Allahpundit

Now that it has been revealed that Jerome Armstrong of MyDD fame used to give advice about politics and stocks based on astrology, a lot of people have been relentlessly mocking him for it -- as well they should.

But, some of his compatriots on the left are rising to his defense. Digby claims that it's just as dangerous politically to mock astrology as it is to mock religion:

"Let me tell you, it is as big a faux pas to disparage astrology or any of the new age or non-traditional spiritual belief system as it is to put down mainstream religion. I found this out the hard way when I wrote a very snarky and admittedly insulting post one day and got more angry feedback than any post I've ever done. These beliefs in the aggregate may be as widely held as a belief in God and it cuts across all political and cultural lines. Call it kooky if you will, but those who think secular liberals should STFU about traditional religion would be well advised to STFU about this too."

It's funny that the left never seemed to apply that rule to poor Nancy Reagan, who got so upset after the assassination attempt on her husband that she started regularly consulting an astrologist because of concerns over her husband's safety.

Then there's this from Atrios:

"In 2003, 31% of the population, including 27% of Christians were believers (down from 37% in 1998 with 37% of Christians believing). I'm not entirely sure how to classify astrology, but presumably it falls under the general umbrella of religious/spiritual beliefs.

For an agnostic/atheist like myself lots of religious beliefs sound pretty nutty to me, but as Amy Sullivan keeps telling us we keep losing elections because people like me aren't sufficiently respectful of religious beliefs even though, you know, we generally are. And, now, from left to right, from Tap to TNR to the wingnutosphere, people are falling all over themselves to mock someone who had a perfectly mainstream belief apparently shared by millions and millions of Americans.

I find that rather odd."

Astrology is not a religious belief. It's pure, unadulterated, worthless crap drawn up by charlatans and fakers.

That being said, there's a difference between reading a horoscope and writing the horoscope. There's a difference between playing with a Ouija board on a lark and being a professional medium who conducts seances. There's a difference between having your palm read for the fun of it and being a professional palm reader.

The readees in my experience, are usually just curious, want to try something new, or at a minimum, give minimal credence to what their horoscope says.

But, professional psychics, palm readers, astrologers, and witches who actually offer their services to other people and live and die by this stuff? They're either nuts or crooked.

This is the category that "Astrologer Jerome" falls into and can we be perfectly honest here? If say, Glenn Reynolds, Michelle Malkin, or Hugh Hewitt had written things similar to what Jerome has about astrology, they would have been mocked mercilessly by the left AND right side of the blogosphere for it.

Moreover, can you imagine the reaction to a candidate who had hired one of those people as a consultant after all of this became widely known? If let's say, George Allen had hired a Republican blogger as a consultant who used to do astrological predictions on the net and who was involved in a stock swindle -- and then refused to fire him after that came out, all hell would have broken loose -- which makes you wonder: why is Mark Warner keeping Jerome Armstrong around? Is it for the stock advice? Does Jerome Armstrong tell him which state to campaign in first based on how bright Jupiter is?

On the other hand, if Warner is just hanging on to Armstrong at this time based on his friendship with Kos, what does that say? Did he hire him to get his advice or just because he thought he could insure that Mark Warner got good press on the biggest liberal blog on the planet? Does that mean that if Jerome Armstrong switched from Warner to Clinton, Kos would suddenly start talking about how wonderful Hillary is? Well, it wouldn't be the first time that Kos had done a 180 on a candidate after Armstrong got on board with his campaign. Of course, as Armstrong might say, maybe Kos's positions were all in the stars anyway...

Also see,

Kos-ola Payola?

This week-end, a book by Reginald Bohannon called, Coming Out Of The Republican Closet: Coming To Terms With Being Black, Patriotic, And Conservative, caught my eye. So, I contacted Mr. Bohannon and set up a phone interview with him. What you're about to see is an edited transcript of our conversation:

John Hawkins: I found this tagline from the description of your book interesting:

"Bohannon soon discovered that he was conservative. Not wanting to disappoint his family and bring ill-repute on them, Bohannon chose to keep his political viewpoints to himself."

Tell us about that. Why would being conservative disappoint your family and "bring ill repute on them?"

Reginald Bohannon: Well, for one, 90-95% of blacks vote for the Democratic Party and my mom was -- and still is -- active with the Democratic Party in Lexington, North Carolina. If I..came out and told her that I was a Republican, she would...get (called names) and so would I -- Uncle Tom, sell-out, Oreo and things of that nature.

So, once I did find out that I was conservative ...I didn't want the name calling and I hadn't gotten up the courage to come out of the closet at that time. Once I learned more about conservatism and educated myself through talk radio, columns, and books, that gave me the courage to say, "Yes, I am conservative and I do vote for Republicans."

John Hawkins: Over the years, I've seen a lot of polling data and I think that at least a third of black Americans should probably be voting Republican based on their views. Would you agree with that estimate? Do you think it's high, low?

Reginald Bohannon: I think it's much higher because blacks by and large are conservative, but what happens is that we automatically jump to the Democratic Party...without even determining whether we are conservative or liberal. That's what I did. I basically went with the Democratic Party because that's who my mom is with.

The majority of blacks are conservative, but they're not aware of it. When I talk to people who are running for office or blacks in general, I tell them that I'm not necessarily trying to get them to change into Republicans, I just want them to see who they really are.

John Hawkins: The tag line for your book says that you, "grew up Democrat but switched to a Republican. Find out why." So why did you switch from a Democrat to a Republican?

Reginald Bohannon: In 1988, I was in Atlanta and that was when the Democratic convention came to town -- and Jesse Jackson was running. I said, "Great! This will be a good time for me to really get into politics." I had never voted before and...so I volunteered with the Jesse Jackson campaign.

At that time, the Rainbow Coalition was at its height with Jesse Jackson getting blacks and Hispanics around the country (to register) for the Democratic Party. So, I thought to myself that if Jesse Jackson does not get the Presidential nomination outright, then he certainly would be selected as the Vice-Presidential nominee because (he brought in so many new voters for the Democratic Party).

Of course...they selected Lloyd Bentsen. That's when I really got disgruntled. I said, "Wait a minute. I thought the Democratic Party was for minorities? Why didn't they select Jesse Jackson?" That's when...I decided to do my homework on both parties.

...(I) found out that the Republican Party was founded to combat and get rid of slavery. After the Civil War, they enacted so many laws that were favorable towards blacks. Then when the Democrats got control of the House and Senate, they repealed a lot of those laws.

...Once I discovered those things, I tried to take the easy way out by becoming an independent...Later on, as I got more knowledge and the courage, I finally just came out and told my mom after a big argument, over Christmas, about President Clinton and his peccadillos. I said, "By the way, I voted for Bob Dole!"

John Hawkins: (Laughs)

Reginald Bohannon: That was my official coming out right there, after a big blow up and argument with her. It was like I was coming out of the closet, like a gay person does with his parents.

...That was when talk radio was getting really big with Rush Limbaugh....Before Rush Limbaugh, a lot of people were in the closet with their conservatism, even whites. But, when Rush came out it gave conservatives a bigger voice and an understanding that yes, we're out here and willing to debate the issues.

John Hawkins: How do you think the GOP should deal with the NAACP? Should they try to engage them, treat them as a partisan liberal organization, or do something else?

Reginald Bohannon: I would like to see (the GOP) try to engage them. Show them how they are conservative. Show them how the Republican Party was founded. A lot of people that are in the NAACP are into the church. More blacks go to church on a percentage basis than whites. So, it's like we get our conservative principles from the Bible, in church, but when we step outside of that church then we all of a sudden become liberal. A lot of times, liberalism goes against our conservative beliefs, beliefs that we've gotten in the church.

What I would like to see the RNC do is point out the fact that blacks are conservative and even if you're going to remain a Democrat, do not give up on your conservative beliefs and principles. Just like with gay marriage -- blacks know gays, we have them in our families -- we love gays, but by and large, we do not want to see them get married. But, the Democratic Party wants to see them get married, so in turn, the black elected Democratic leaders have to go along with that, even knowing that (most) blacks do not agree with gays getting married.

...The Democratic Party wants to accept any and everybody and whatever your issue is, once you come on in their tent -- everybody has to agree with everybody else's stance. That doesn't bode well for black people in general.

John Hawkins: If, let's say, George Bush, Ken Mehlman, Bill Frist and some of the other leaders of the Republican Party came to you and said, "We want to reach out to black Americans and bring them into the Republican Party. What do we need to say or do to make that happen?" What would you tell them?

Reginald Bohannon: ...Get some talking points and show what the Republican Party stands for, what conservatism is. Reveal who these people are, reveal that they're conservative. ...A lot of blacks think the Republican Party is racist, but they (need to) hold onto their conservative beliefs and say, "This is the party I'm supposed to be in and if I think it's racist, let me get into it and make changes." But once they get into the (Republican) Party, they'll see that the Party is not racist (like) the opposition is telling them...The Republican Party, conservatism, is our home. People like Bill Frist, President Bush need to say, "Come on home. This is your party. This is where you belong."

Have blacks not just coming in to vote, but running for meaningful positions around the country. You see a lot of intelligent blacks running for office all around the country. Whether it's in Maryland with Michael Steele or Ken Blackwell in Ohio...and it takes some intelligence to be a black Republican because you have to do your homework. ...To be a Democrat, you just have to join the Party that your family belongs to and you don't have to learn anything at all.

John Hawkins: ...Thanks a lot for taking the time. I appreciate it.

You can get Mr. Bohannon's book, Coming Out Of The Republican Closet: Coming To Terms With Being Black, Patriotic, And Conservative, here.

Ready for part 2 of Dani Cutler's interview with me for her podcast show, Truth Seekers?

Well today, Dani put up the 2nd part of the interview and you can listen to it here.

As per usual, Dani was extremely nice, and we had talked about Ohio in 2004, the candidates in 2008, whether America was liberal or conservative, and a few other things. There is a 15:00 long opener from Dani, but you should be able to fast forward through it if you want to get directly to the conversation.

You can listen to part 1, here.

One of the oddest things about a lot of liberals is that simple displays of support for the troops or patriotism actually irritates them. For example, consider this recommended diary at the Daily Kos called, "Please take the magnets off your cars."

"I've just finished reading clammyc's diary (Okay wingnut troop supporters - try to defend THIS), and s/he has tapped into something I've been wanting to write about for sometime but just haven't had a chance to do so.

It's about those d*mn Support Our Troops magnets and the like. Please take them off your car.

I am the wife of an army reservist. My husband has not been called to active duty, but could be at any time. Every day there is a possibility that my life as I know it could be drastically changed. I know other military families who are in the same situation, and I know military families whose lives have already been drastically affected. It is the sword of Damocles hanging over our heads.

All that being said, what in the world does slapping a magnet on your vehicle have anything to do with supporting our troops? Everytime I see one, particularly when it mixed in with the "W" sticker and the screaming American eagle decal, I am insulted. Many times, the yahoo whose got the sticker on his car is of military service age, but would rather talk tough than put their *ss on the line." -- TigerMom

It's amazing, isn't it? When somebody, anybody, publicly shows his support for the troops, there are liberals out there, like TigerMom, getting angry about it. It sounds bizarre, doesn't it? The whole, "If you support the troops, you should volunteer," thing at the end makes no sense either. You mean the only people who can support the troops publicly should be in the military? Although TigerMom says her husband is a reservist, she doesn't say she was in the military. So, does that mean that she doesn't support the troops? Undoubtedly she'd say no, she does support the troops, just in different ways. But, given the hostility so many liberals in this country show towards our military, what's wrong with a simple, open display of support?

Yet, despite the popularity of sentiments like the ones TigerMom wrote about in this article, a lot of liberals get angry, get furious, when people suggest that they're not patriotic or don't the support the troops. Then, those same people turn right around and get huffy about those "support the troops" magnets or an American flag being displayed. Could it be that a lot of liberals don't support the troops and aren't patriotic, but feel that they have to be perceived that way for politics' sake, and therefore resent having to pretend to support the troops or be patriotic? That sounds about right.

Last night, John Jacob was defeated by Chris Cannon. Cannon took 55.8% of the vote and Jacob pulled 44.2%. Combine the very low turnout with the final two polls that had Cannon up 49-42 and Jacob up 45-44 and I have to say that I'm a little surprised that Jacob didn't do better. My expectation was that even if he lost, it would be a closer race, with at least 47% of the vote or higher going to Jacob.

In the end, I think Jacob was just overwhelmed. The 44.2% of the vote he got was primarily based on his tough opposition to illegal immigration. On the other hand, although Cannon was handicapped by his support of the comprehensive bill in the Senate, he was also a 5-time incumbent, running against a political novice who made some significant mistakes and got stung by a couple of mini-scandals that sounded bad, even if there didn't seem to be much substance to them. Furthermore, Cannon had more money, a solid conservative record on almost everything but immigration, his brother runs the Republican Party in Utah, and he even got an endorsement from George Bush -- which was probably the biggest factor in his favor. Even though George Bush's approval rating is low right now, an endorsement from the President in a Republican primary, in a very conservative district, is an enormous asset.

It would be great to sit here and tell you that this was a moral victory since Cannon had everything breaking his way except the illegal immigration issue and Jacob still got 44% of the vote, but moral victories in politics are almost always a cop-out. Either your guy wins or he loses and there's no in-between. When you come up on the losing end, all you can do is stand up, brush yourself off, and keep going.

As far as Chris Cannon goes, I would wish him luck in beating his Democratic Candidate in November, but you really don't need luck if you're the Republican candidate in a district where Bush beat Kerry 77% to 20% in 2004. Cannon will do a good job on everything but illegal immigration in Congress and if we get lucky, maybe this election will scare him a little bit, and he'll take a few steps to the right on the issue. We'll see.

Update #1: There is already some "what does this mean for the illegal immigration debate talk" going on. Does Cannon's victory mean the President's plan is really more popular than people thought? No offense to John Jacob, because I did prefer him as a candidate, but from what I've seen of the race, if he'd have had exactly the same position as Cannon on illegal immigration, he'd have been lucky to get into double digits at the polls.

In Chris Cannon, you basically had a candidate who the voters in the primary found acceptable in almost every way, except for his position on illegal immigration. Yet, that was such a big deal that 44% of the voters were willing to defect to another candidate because of that one issue. That suggests to me that, at least for this election cycle, being for the Senate's immigration plan could be just as deadly for a Republican as being pro-abortion or pro-gun control. In Cannon's case, because he had every other advantage leaning heavily in his favor, he made it through the primary. But, other Republicans who support the Senate Amnesty bill and have to face stronger opponents in November, may not be so lucky.

Israeli Troops Enter Gaza; Bridges Hit (Give 'Em Hell Israel)

Olmert: Military Strike Will Continue

New Hamas-Fatah plan recognizes Israel

Iraqi Says Attacks on U.S. Won't Be Pardoned (Free New York Times Reg Req)

House Republican Leaders Are Expected To Introduce A Resolution Today Condemning The New York Times For Publishing A Story Last Week That Exposed Government Monitoring Of Banking Records

Senate Blocks Flag-Burn ban

"Hadji Girl" Marine: Exonerated (Hooray!)

Duke Defense Lawyers: Dancer Claimed She Wasn't Raped

Rush Limbaugh Jokes About Viagra Find

AP Incorrectly Claims Scientists Praise Gore’s Movie

News Agency Apologizes to Ariz. Candidate, Goldwater, For Inaccurate Report

David Holman: The Huffington Post's Swift Antics

An Interview With Ann Coulter

John Stossel: When Sexism Claims Are A Real Hoot

The Washington Post: It's Time To Allow More Offshore Drilling (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Bush Jogs With Wounded Soldier

A Well-Known Political Blogger, Peter Daou, Is Hired by the Clinton Campaign

Rare Giant Beetle Scares Workers But Survives

Humor: U.S. Threatens North Korea With Ann Coulter Launch

Website Of The Day: Tim Chapman

Look who made the Salt Lake Tribune today for something I wrote in the comments section at Human Events' Right Angle Blog:

"Utah Republican Party Chairman Joe Cannon says he's trying to stay neutral in his brother Rep. Chris Cannon's primary battle, but it didn't come across that way in comments he posted online last weekend questioning his brother's challenger.

Cannon appeared to poke all the vulnerable spots in the campaign of John Jacob, commenting on allegations involving his employment of people with questionable immigration status and his published remarks blaming Satan for his campaign's financial problems. Joe Cannon starts off his post noting Jacob's "obvious problems."

"In your interview with Jacob did you ask him why he supports a 'Disneyland day pass' approach to illegal aliens? This approach is worse than any amnesty proposal," Joe Cannon wrote on the conservative Web site, Humanevents online.com.

Joe Cannon also raised questions about Jacob paying under the table a Chilean couple here on non-work visas and through a company created to possibly skirt immigration and tax laws.

The party official - who is barred by party rules from picking sides in an intraparty race - was responding to a blog post by a user named John Hawkins, who complained that Joe Cannon, a member of the board of directors of the Deseret Morning News, may have had something to do with a story in that newspaper about Jacob's past gambling. The newspaper ran an editor's note disclosing Joe Cannon's position.

"Draw your own conclusions," Hawkins wrote. "I've interviewed Jacob and I'd love to see him replace Cannon, so we can get rid of one more guy in the House who shares Ted Kennedy's views on illegal immigration."

In a post after Hawkins, Joe Cannon says that "to blame all of your business failures on the devil is also not typical of believers . . .. Personal responsibility is a hallmark of Republican philosophy."

Joe Cannon said Monday that Hawkins "ripped me," and "it really made me mad," and he felt he needed to respond."

On the one hand, I'm not going to be getting any bouquets from the Utah Republican Party any time soon and if Chris Cannon wins, I have a feeling he's not going to be giving me any interviews or inviting me to any teleconferences.

On the other hand, this appeared in a Utah paper on the day of the Jacob vs. Cannon primary, so it could tilt some people towards the candidate I support, John Jacob, in what is expected to be a very tight race that could have national implications.

On balance, it seems like a worthwhile trade-off.

Also see,

The Battle In The Beehive State: John Jacob Vs. Chris Cannon
An Exclusive Mini-Interview With John Jacob
Right Angle: Joe Cannon's Comment Gets Noticed

Update #1: Jacob is getting absolutely murdered early. With 13% of the vote counted, it's 59.8% for Cannon and 40.2% for Jacob. That's not encouraging...

Update #2: It looks really bad for Jacob at this point. With 39.81% voting, he's losing 57.55% to 42.45%. Unfortunately, it doesn't even look like it's going to be close.

Rick Santorum is up for re-election in 2006 and he'll be going head to head with Bob Casey. Santorum is generally considered to be the most vulnerable Republican in the Senate and he's polling well behind Bob Casey right now. However, Santorum is an excellent campaigner with the advantages of incumbency and Casey seems to be coasting on the fond memories Pennsylvanians have of his father, rather than his own merits. So, even though he is behind at the moment, Santorum still has time to pull it out.

Yesterday, I did a short phone interview with Rick Santorum about WMDs, a leadership position in the Senate, and the Senator's re-election campaign. Here is an edited, partial transcript of that conversation.

John Hawkins: What do you say to people who now know that we discovered 500 WMDS in Iraq, that Saddam had stockpiles of weapons, and yet they still say, "Aww, that's not a big deal. What does it prove?" What do you say to those people, Rick?

Rick Santorum: Well, I say that it was one of the pieces of the puzzle that we believe helps put together the threat that Saddam was to this country and the world... One of the things that we asserted was that he had not destroyed his stockpiles of weapons from the previous war. We sent in weapons inspectors, as people will recall, not only to look at whether he had current weapons programs in place, but to determine whether he had destroyed the weapons he said he had destroyed. It is very clear that he did not destroy those weapons and that those weapons would have been available and unfortunately still are available to...terrorist organizations that could use them against us or other countries around the world.

John Hawkins: (I hear that you may)....be duking it out to be the next (Whip) on the Hill. Any truth to that?

Rick Santorum: I know Lamar Alexander has talked to people and has been very clear that he is interested in running for that position. If anyone were to challenge me, it would be Lamar....I feel very confident that when we win this thing, that we'll have a race for the Whip and I have every intention of winning that race, too.

John Hawkins: Now you voted against the immigration bill in the Senate. Why did you do that and do you think it's fair to call it an amnesty bill?

Rick Santorum: Well, I voted against it for a lot of reasons. ...I think it puts the cart before the horse. It is a bill that allows everybody that is in this country to get in on a path to legalization. You can call it amnesty, you call it whatever you want to call it, but it says that if you're here you can stay and stay with very little price associated with staying. You jump ahead of...everybody else who has been following the rules to get here. I don't approve of that.

I think what we need to do is instead of first working on legalization, is work on border security, work on making sure we have tamper-proof ID cards, make sure that we have good employer enforcement -- and make sure that we have a temporary worker program that is truly temporary -- which means that people come to this country for a period of time, for certain purposes, and have to return home.

John Hawkins: If someone said to you, "Rick, I am undecided between you and Casey. Give me three differences between the two of you that would convince me to vote for you." What would you tell them?

Rick Santorum: First, I'd say taxes are a big difference. He is against the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003. He said he would like to raise...rates up to 50% for the top bracket. He is absolutely a traditional tax and spend Democrat. So on taxes and spending, he is for spending a bunch more and taxing a bunch more....

The second issue that I think is especially important, particularly for Pennsylvanians, is medical liability reform. That's an issue that is just killing our commonwealth. We are losing doctors hand over fist. We had 9 maternity wards close down in the city of Philadelphia, 5 in the city of Pittsburgh. We have a real crisis on our hands and Bobby Casey is a trial lawyer. That's what he did. He sued doctors before he got into politics and there is a big difference between him and me on (that) issue.

...Those are the two big economic issues that are facing us. On the cultural side, probably the biggest difference is on the issue of marriage. I strongly believe we need to protect the traditional family in America and he does not feel that way. He is not in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment. He is not in favor of a State Marriage Amendment. He would do nothing to stop the courts from doing what they (inevitably seem to do), which is to...take this issue of what marriage is out of the hands of the people and have the courts decide it for us in a way that is against the way most Americans think it should be.

John Hawkins: Now, you're doubling Casey in fund raising and I'm hearing that you intend to run ads all the way from now until election day. If you had one concise message that you wanted to get out to people about Rick Santorum and one concise message that you had to let people know about Bob Casey, what would it be?

Rick Santorum: The concise message is that I am someone who has the courage of his convictions, who will stand up and tell you what I think, and I will deliver on what I promise.

He's someone who has (hardly ever) articulated a firm stance on...any issue. He's hiding behind his father's name in an attempt to fool the voters. That's how he has gotten elected to every office so far -- and the only race he ever lost was where he had to take positions and he lost badly. I think Pennsylvania deserves a fighter, who's going to tell you what he's going to do, and then has the courage, the fortitude, and the work ethic to go out and do it and Bob Casey has not shown that he has those (qualities) in his public life.

Over at the very liberal blog, Whiskey Bar, Billmon wrote a long, interesting, albeit unsurprisingly slanted to the left, post about the motivations of the publications on the left in pursuing the Ko$ola scandal:

"The real question in my mind is what the attack puppies are trying to accomplish. Surely they must understand that in the end, there is no such thing as bad publicity for a blogger. Ann Coulter has built an extremely lucrative career out of being attacked in print by her opponents. Does the TNR really think Daily Kos's traffic and ad revenues are going to do down because of this? If so, it may explain why the f*cking rag is withering away: an absolute lack of business sense.

Seriously, though, I suspect the real objective here is to try to scare away the Democratic pols who have been cozying up to Kos and the liberal blogosphere. The sight of all those powerbrokers -- Harry Reid, etc. -- lining up to kiss Kos's ring in Vegas must have really set the klaxons wailing at DLC HQ. It isn't that Kos is particularly liberal or progressive (the right wingers only yell that he is because they understand that he isn't.) Go where the real lefties hang out, and you'll learn mighty fast that the name Kos is a dirty word in those circles -- right up there with those other well-known fascist running dogs like Howard Dean and John Kerry.

But in the end it doesn't matter. The Lieberman Dems don't hate and fear Kos and the Daily Kos "community" because they are too far to the left. They hate them because they represent an emerging power center within the Democratic Party that they don't control -- what's more, one that is now much closer to the public mainstream on the central issue of our time (the Iraq War) than they are.

...Add in the cheerful brutality with which Kos and Jerome have skewered the consultants and the DLC Dems, the primary defeat now looming over Joe Lieberman's head, and the rice bowls that could be broken if the old system of campaign graft is abandoned, and it's easy to understand why the long knives are out.

Whether the grown ups (Peretz, Lieberman, Hillary) actually set the Swiftboat in motion, or just watched approvingly ("Who shall rid us of this meddlesome blogger?") as their hatchet boys did what comes natural, is almost irrelevant. The important thing to understand is that we have reached the point where the Dinos and their media allies are willing to use Rovian tactics against anyone who challenges their entrenched position -- even someone like Kos, who is hardly the second coming of Henry Wallace or George McGovern.

Whether that's good or bad for the Kossaks I don't know -- I suppose it depends on how much credence you give to Gandhi's old saw: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." In the real world -- and in imperial America, too -- the truth is that sometimes they ignore you, then ridicule you, then fight you and crush you like an overripe eggplant. We'll see if that's true this time. Either way, though, it looks like the battle between the netroots and dino Dems is going to get very down and dirty indeed."

Billmon is on to something here.

What people have to understand about Kos is that he has been phenomenally successful -- as a blogger. He has an enormous audience, he rakes in beaucoup bucks, people pay attention to what he has to say, he helped write a moderately successful book, and his Yearly Kos convention was a big success. Without question, Markos Moulitsas Zungia has blazed a trail and everyone else in the political blogosphere is following in his wake.

On the other hand, in the world of politics, Kos is nothing but a puffed up little pissant with very marginal accomplishments. Yes, he may have helped raise a lot of money for candidates, but he might as well have thrown that money out a window for all the good it has done anyone. As of yet, the Democratic netroots hasn't delivered a single victory over a Republican candidate.

His book sales? A really good week for Kos would be an extremely slow Tuesday for someone like Ann Coulter. His Yearly Kos convention? It was a thousand people. Big whoop. 1200 people gathered at a conspiracy theorist convention in LA and would anyone be surprised if some of the same people were at both conventions? Kos's massive audience? Congrats, Kos, you're roughly 1/20 the size of Drudge!

Moreover, if you look at the biggest accomplishment of Kos and the liberal netroots, it would probably be getting Howard Dean in as chairman of the Democratic National Committee. We're talking about a guy who stinks at fund raising, squanders the money they collect on a ludicrous 50 state program ("No, don't spend the money on that competitive race. We need to use it in Utah instead!"), and who, at regular intervals pipes up with some ludicrous comment that fires up the Republican base and makes the rest of the country think the Democrats are nuts.

Want to know a little secret? Lean in close, because I don't want anyone to hear. Republicans think Howard Dean helps us more than he does the Democrats and...we think the same thing about Kos. We love the fact that Democratic politicians post on the Daily Kos and, as Billmon says, kiss his ring. Know why? Because the Daily Kos is a moonbat pit and every time Kos or even one of his diarists says something paranoid or ridiculous, which they do pretty regularly, we can tie it to big cheeses in the Democratic Party.

Now, the point of the last four paragraphs wasn't just to rip on Kos, although that was fun, it's to point out how arrogant and out-of-touch with reality he is when he says things like,

"I write in our book, I write, basically, the establishment Democrats have three choices. One, they can join us, and a lot of people have, people like Simon Rosenberg. They can get out of the way. Or we're going to roll them. Because quite frankly we're tired of losing, and we're not going to do that anymore."

Kos is, in the political world, a minor player who has never won anything. Yet, he's in essence telling all the other Democrats that they're losers and they can either join him or get out of his way? Combine that sort of titanic arrogance with Kos's mediocre record and is it any wonder that Kos's name is a "dirty word" in some circles?

The truth is that Kos has chosen to pick a fight not only with his ideological foes in the Democratic Party, like the DLC, but with a lot of liberals who would otherwise be predisposed to be his allies. Unfortunately for him, he has finally gotten big enough for them to notice and they are starting to fire back.

The The Top 8 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Is a Weaker Candidate Than People Think column I wrote for Human Events inspired at least one...uh, let's call it a creative response that was just forwarded over to me today. Enjoy the paranoia from one Mr. Timothy Willis:

"Last month it was "Can she be stopped?" This month the theme is "She doesn't have a chance." To paraphrase my hero Lou Dobbs, "Do the Republicans take us for fools?" Such a thematic approach by several Republican commentators can be no coincidence. This is all part of an organized set-up. Factor in the recents radio ads which suggest drafing the war Condelezza Rice for president. and its clear that it all part of a Karl Rove-organized scam!

If Hillary Clinton was a weak canidate, then you and the rest would not be writing such articles that are so obviously in lockstep. Hillary Clinton will win because she is a strong canidate and because the Bushes and the Clintons have struck a deal. Am I to believe that Bill Clinton and Big Daddy Bush just happened to become close? BULLSH*T!!!

It not blood, but betrayal that runs in the veins of the Bush family. They delight in the act of betrayal and are loyal to no one.Republicans like yourself are just suckers to be used and then discarded after you have outlived your short lifespan as a useful idiot.

The Bush family has managed to scam the American people beyond their wildest dreams, but there is a catch. In two-and-a-half years George W. Bush will leave office and the next president will not be a member of the Bush family. The most important thing from the point-of-view of the Bush family is to stop or slow down any investigations that will occur under a successive administration. The best way to do this is by throwing their support, even if quietly behind the scenes, of the successor of George W. Bush. Make no mistake, a deal has been struck and Hillary Clinton will be receiving endorsement and support from sources that will make both Democrats and Republicans shake their heads in disbelief."

Despite all the global warming hysteria that people on the left try to whip up, there is one major problem that gets very little attention: even if you believe global warming exists and that man is causing it, there is no practical solution to the problem.

Even most of the hard core "true believer" environmentalists who think global warming will turn the earth into a "burning ring of fire" in a hundred years admit that all the Kyoto Treaty would accomplish is to give us a few more years.

Technologically, there are a few practical things we can do to cut emissions, like building nuclear power plants, but there's no immediately apparent technological solution on the horizon.

That's why some of the more exotic ideas about how to fight global warming should be studied, just in case they're needed. For example:

"In the past few decades, a handful of scientists have come up with big, futuristic ways to fight global warming: Build sunshades in orbit to cool the planet. Tinker with clouds to make them reflect more sunlight back into space. Trick oceans into soaking up more heat-trapping greenhouse gases.

Their proposals were relegated to the fringes of climate science. Few journals would publish them. Few government agencies would pay for feasibility studies. Environmentalists and mainstream scientists said the focus should be on reducing greenhouse gases and preventing global warming in the first place.

But now, in a major reversal, some of the world's most prominent scientists say the proposals deserve a serious look because of growing concerns about global warming.

...The plans and proposed studies are part of a controversial field known as geoengineering, which means rearranging the earth's environment on a large scale to suit human needs and promote habitability. Dr. Cicerone, an atmospheric chemist, will detail his arguments in favor of geoengineering studies in the August issue of the journal Climatic Change."

Granted, some of these ideas may sound wacky at first listen, but they also seem a lot more practical than stopping the whole of mankind from producing massive amounts of greenhouse gasses. But will they ever be needed at all? Maybe, maybe not.

Quite frankly, given mankind's very limited understanding of how our climate works, I don't believe anyone who says he can predict what the weather or global temperature will be 20 years from now, much less a hundred years in the future. Still, it's never a bad idea to be prepared -- and given all the money we're spending on global warming research, if we were to spend a few million on research to determine how feasible some of these geoengineering proposals might be, that would be money well spent in my opinion.

Jason Furman argues in Slate that, contrary to what organized labor would have you believe, Wal-Mart is actually good for the working class.

A range of studies has found that Wal-Mart’s prices are 8 percent to 39 percent below the prices of its competitors. The single most careful economic study, co-authored by the well-respected MIT economist Jerry Hausman, found that grocery sales by Wal-Mart and other big-box stores made consumers better off to the tune of 25 percent of food consumption. That doesn’t mean much for those of us in the top fifth of the income distribution—we spend only about 3.5 percent of our income on food at home and, at least in my case, most of that shopping is done at high-priced supermarkets like Whole Foods. But that’s a huge savings for households in the bottom quintile, which, on average, spend 26 percent of their income on food. In fact, it is equivalent to a 6.5 percent boost in household income—unless the family lives in New York City or one of the other places that have successfully kept Wal-Mart and its ilk away.

Where do these low prices come from? Paul Krugman, writing back in 1993, provides an answer: “The most significant American business success story of the late 20th century may well be Wal-Mart, which has applied extensive computerization and a home-grown version of Japan’s ‘just in time’ inventory methods to revolutionize retailing.” Many economists didn’t expect the service sector to contribute much to productivity. Many non-economists still have a hard time believing it has. But Harvard economist Ken Rogoff has the numbers, and they are mind boggling:

[T]ogether with a few sister “big box” stores (Target, Best Buy, and Home Depot), Wal-Mart accounts for roughly 50% of America’s much vaunted productivity growth edge over Europe during the last decade. Fifty percent! Similar advances in wholesaling supply chains account for another 25%! The notion that Americans have gotten better at everything while other rich countries have stood still is thus wildly misleading. The US productivity miracle and the emergence of Wal-Mart-style retailing are virtually synonymous.

All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

The thing to keep in mind, however, is that the people who own Wal-Mart make a lot of money, and they are therefore evil. Let’s never forget that.

This content was used with the permission of Outside The Beltway.

Bush Slams Leak Of Terror Finance Story

Cheney: New York Times Harms U.S. Security

Scrawled Bush Threat Sparks California Port Scare

Flag Burning Amendment One Vote Shy

The University Of Colorado Announced Monday That It Will Dismiss Controversial Professor Ward Churchill (About Time)

Dick Morris: Joe Lieberman Will Lose Primary

Limbaugh Detained At Palm Beach Airport

Black Candidates Paint New Picture For GOP Politics

New Evidence Emerges in Haditha Case

Israel Says Clock Ticking For Hamas Over Soldier

Palestinians: Chemical Warfare If Israel Invades Gaza. But Terrorist Sources Admit Current Toxic Arsenal 'Primitive'

Bombs in 2 Iraq Cities Kill at Least 35

John Snow: Dear Mr. Keller

Jeff Taylor: A Low Tech Lynching At Duke

National Review: Stop the Leaks

Gary Marx: 5 Do's And Don'ts For Conservatives Between Now And '08

Insurgents Are Asking Iraq for Negotiations (Free New Yorl Times Reg Req)

Michael Barone: The New York Times At War With America

Osama Bin Laden's Former Sex Slave Writing For 'Days of Our Lives?'

Transvestite Gang Causes Problems In New Orleans

Rowling: Two 'Potter' Characters Will Die

Blogger Acidman, From Gut Rumbles, Found Dead

Website Of The Day: The Mona Log

If the Israelis wanted to do so, they could squash the Palestinians like a bug under a child's sneaker. The Israelis could kill them by the tens of thousands, they could drive them off their land, and there's precious little that the Palestinians could do to stop them. So, the Palestinians are able to continue to live in the disputed territories solely because the Israelis are a better, more decent, more civilized people than they are. However, even the Israelis have their limits and if this story is true, they may soon be tested:

"The Aksa Martyrs Brigades announced on Sunday that its members have succeeded in manufacturing chemical and biological weapons.

In a leaflet distributed in the Gaza Strip, the group, which belongs to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah Party, said the weapons were the result of a three-year effort.

According to the statement, the first of its kind, the group has managed to manufacture and develop at least 20 different types of biological and chemical weapons."

Do the Palestinian terrorists really understand the can of worms they're going to open up if they use WMDs against the Israelis? If they were to -- say, use mustard gas in a pizzeria or sarin in an office building, it would be considered an enormous escalation of hostilities.

In response to an attack of that magnitude, you can be sure that the Israelis would hit the Palestinians much harder than they ever have before and when you're talking about the response to the use of WMDS, there almost is no such thing as, "using too much force," short of genocide.

For example, if a country like Iran, Syria, or North Korea were to use WMDs against American civilians, at a minimum you'd have to think that we'd overthrow the government of the offending country -- and even nuking them wouldn't be an overreaction. So, what would Israel do? It's hard to say at this point, but you can be sure that it would be extremely painful for the Palestinians.

Also, there's something else to consider: transfer. If the Palestinians were to commit an enormous massacre via WMDS, that might be the turning point that convinces the Israeli people that they simply can't continue to live beside the Palestinians -- and it wouldn't be the Israelis who would end up moving.

Whatever the case may be, if WMDs are used against the Israelis, the Bush Administration should offer unwavering public support for any retaliatory measures by the Israelis. They're fighting the war on terror, too, and they deserve our support.

"The New York Times and other news organizations ought to think long and hard about whether a public's right to know in some cases might override somebody's right to live." -- Tony Snow

Tomorrow, John Jacob and Chris Cannon are going to go head to head in a Republican primary, in Utah's 3rd Congressional District.

Cannon is a 5-term incumbent with an excellent conservative record -- except on illegal immigration, where he supports the Senate amnesty plan. John Jacob is a raw political rookie who's also very conservative -- but unlike Cannon, Jacob is also tough on illegal immigration.

Polling has been hard to come by until these last few days, but there are now a few polls for us to take look at. The Deseret News did a poll of registered voters, which seems pointless given that it's not an open primary. However, when they yank the Republicans out of the poll numbers, here's what they come up with:

"Cannon still leads, 49-42 percent, among those who told Jones they have a high interest in the election and "definitely or probably" will vote in the closed Republican primary. But when you take the voters who have a "high interest" in the race and drop in the poll's margin of error, statistically speaking, Jacob could pull the race out."

The Salt Lake City Tribune also did a poll, but their poll was of likely" Republican primary voters. It showed 44% favoring Cannon and 41% favoring Jacob. Also, "Of those who said they are "definite" about voting in the primary, Mr. Jacob netted 45 percent and Mr. Cannon netted 44 percent."

Looking at those numbers, this has to be considered a toss-up -- which is amazing if you think about it. Cannon is a conservative, 5-time incumbent with plenty of money. He has been endorsed by George Bush and has had recorded phone messages featuring Laura Bush going out to Republican voters in his very conservative district.

Meanwhile, John Jacob has never run for office before, has made some rookie mistakes, and has been mocked by his political opponents because he believes in the devil and thinks Lucifer would prefer to see him lose the election.

Yet and still, the race is a toss-up based solely on the fact that Jacob is tough on illegal immigration and Cannon isn't. There's a message in that for Republicans in Congress. Oh, and personally? I'm rooting for Jacob to knock Cannon off because I think it would send a shockwave through Congress that would practically guarantee that the House won't back off on the illegal immigration issue come hell or high water.

Tomorrow, we'll get to see if Jacob can pull it off and if the Republicans in Utah are going to send the GOP a message that they won't soon forget.

Also see,

An Exclusive Mini-Interview With John Jacob

"Rep. Peter King cited The New York Times in particular for publishing a story last week that the Treasury Department was working with the CIA to examine messages within a massive international database of money-transfer records.

King, R-N.Y., said he would write Attorney General Alberto Gonzales urging that the nation's chief law enforcer "begin an investigation and prosecution of The New York Times _ the reporters, the editors and the publisher."

"We're at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous," King told The Associated Press."

What the New York Times did was absolutely despicable and it unnecessarily put American lives at risk. However, prosecuting the New York Times is the wrong way to deal with the problem.

If the government is allowed to start holding jail time over the heads of members of the press for reporting classified info, we'll risk tumbling down the slippery slope in a hurry. Government officials hate it when any classified or secret data is revealed, whether it's related to national security or not, and if they can get away with forbidding the press from printing it, they'll do so. That would not be in keeping with the First Amendment or in the best interests of the country.

So, does that mean we just have to live with leaks that put our national security at risk? Not at all. What we need to do -- and haven't been doing -- is to aggressively investigate every significant national security leak.

Start things out by asking the reporters to reveal their sources. If they don't give them up, throw them in jail for contempt until they give up the source. Once the government learns the identity of the source who knowingly broke the law by giving out classified info, we should throw everything in the book at them and make sure they end up breaking big rocks into smaller rocks for a couple of decades.

After that happens a few times, guess what? The national security leaks will stop, Americans will be safer, and Al-Qaeda won't be able to use the New York Times as their own personal counter-intelligence unit anymore. That's the right way to put a stop to these leaks.

Courtesy of the New York Times, here's some of the most demeaning marriage advice you've ever seen from some devil-shrew named Amy Sutherland:

"I love my husband. He's well read, adventurous and does a hysterical rendition of a northern Vermont accent that still cracks me up after 12 years of marriage.

But he also tends to be forgetful, and is often tardy and mercurial. He hovers around me in the kitchen asking if I read this or that piece in The New Yorker when I'm trying to concentrate on the simmering pans. He leaves wadded tissues in his wake. He suffers from serious bouts of spousal deafness but never fails to hear me when I mutter to myself on the other side of the house. "What did you say?" he'll shout.

These minor annoyances are not the stuff of separation and divorce, but in sum they began to dull my love for Scott. I wanted — needed — to nudge him a little closer to perfect, to make him into a mate who might annoy me a little less, who wouldn't keep me waiting at restaurants, a mate who would be easier to love.

...Then something magical happened. For a book I was writing about a school for exotic animal trainers, I started commuting from Maine to California, where I spent my days watching students do the seemingly impossible: teaching hyenas to pirouette on command, cougars to offer their paws for a nail clipping, and baboons to skateboard.

I listened, rapt, as professional trainers explained how they taught dolphins to flip and elephants to paint. Eventually it hit me that the same techniques might work on that stubborn but lovable species, the American husband.

The central lesson I learned from exotic animal trainers is that I should reward behavior I like and ignore behavior I don't. After all, you don't get a sea lion to balance a ball on the end of its nose by nagging. The same goes for the American husband.

...Once I started thinking this way, I couldn't stop. At the school in California, I'd be scribbling notes on how to walk an emu or have a wolf accept you as a pack member, but I'd be thinking, "I can't wait to try this on Scott."

...I followed the students to SeaWorld San Diego, where a dolphin trainer introduced me to least reinforcing syndrome (L. R. S.). When a dolphin does something wrong, the trainer doesn't respond in any way. He stands still for a few beats, careful not to look at the dolphin, and then returns to work. The idea is that any response, positive or negative, fuels a behavior. If a behavior provokes no response, it typically dies away.

In the margins of my notes I wrote, "Try on Scott!"

...After two years of exotic animal training, my marriage is far smoother, my husband much easier to love."

Can you imagine being married to this emasculating trench harpy? She talks about her husband like he's a dolphin or an emu that she has to train to stay out of her way. It's almost like he's a dog that she's toilet training. "Then Scott wet the carpet! I was very annoyed with him and so I rubbed Scott's nose in it and said, 'bad boy!'"

You just know that Scott, or as he'll probably be known around the office after this, Flipper, is going to get ribbed mercilessly when he goes into work today.

Co-Worker #1: "Hey, Scott, I bought this ball for you. Can you balance it on your nose?"

Scott: "Very funny, guys."

Co-Worker #2: "Scott, can you call this client?"

Scott: "Sure!"

Co-Worker #2: "Good. Now if you do it quick, I'll give you a fish for doing the trick right."

Scott, can I just give you one piece of advice? Wait until Amy leaves the house -- then run, Scott, run for your life before your crackpot wife neuters you, slaps a dog collar around your neck, and makes you start sleeping in a cage!

So, I'm cruising eBay, looking for wacky auctions and I struck gold in the form of a seller called enchanted_whispering. What's so unique about her? Well, enchanted_whispering sells spells at between $14.54 and $36.39 a pop.

What kind of spells? Well, she has quite a range. According to one of her auctions, she can cast the following spells:

"WEALTH/MONEY
ATTRACT THE ONE YOU LOVE
BRING BACK (ENCOURAGE) A LOVERS RETURN
WIN A JOB
INCREASE YOUR PETS SAFETY
LOST PET
INCREASE HEALTH AND VITALITY
PROTECTION
LOWER DEPRESSION
DISTANCE YOURSELF FROM UNWANTED LOVERS
ENHANCE LOVE AROUND YOU
GOOD LUCK
DEEPER INSIGHT
MORE CONFIDENCE
AVOID BREAK UP/DIVORCE
INCREASE HAPPINESS AND CONTENTMENT"

Now, you're probably thinking, "Surely no one is actually buying these spells."

Certainly not....only 156 people! That's right, she has 156 buyers who have given her feedback over the last 12 months. Let's assume that all she has sold is spells and that the prices have stayed constant. If that was the case and she sold 156 spells at the lowest amount, $14.54, that's $2,268. At the highest rate, $36.39 for 156 spells, she would have made $5,676. So, Samantha Stephens here appears to be making a pretty good amount of dough selling her phony hocus pocus....but that's not the fun part!

Here's the fun part: eBay allows customers to rank their transaction as positive, neutral, or negative. So, if let's say you buy a toaster, and it gets there in great shape, two days later, then the seller gets a positive rating. On the other hand, if let's say the toaster shows up two weeks later and it's broken, the seller gets a negative rating.

Now, here's the thing: there is no such thing as casting spells. You can have someone cast all the love spells you want to make Jennifer Anniston fall madly in love you, but it's still not going to happen. You can cast wealth spells all day long, but you're not going to turn into Bill Gates. So, you would figure that enchanted_whispering would have lots of negative ratings. Actually? She has none. Not a single, solitary, negative rating. Here are some of the comments from people who bought spells from her:

"lovely trustworthy seller as always..cant wait for the results!!"

"Thnks for helping me.. i know it will work, lets wait and see."

"great communication, hoping spell will be successful, will be in touch xx"

"Spell worked, thanks"

"The spell has worked!!! Thank-you!!!"

"Very nice. Performed spell right away. We'll see what happens...."

"She's very sweet even did an extra spell for me for free , I see results already"

"The results of the spell casting is excellent! Thank you ever so much!!!"

"Really quick service. Need to wait 6-8 weeks for spell to work. Fingers crossed."

Maybe it's because I was a psych major, but I find this absolutely fascinating. Here are people buying a non-existent product online, not receiving the product (because it doesn't exist), and yet they're happy with it.

How can that be? I have some theories.

#1) They believe in magic and even if they don't see any effects, they're afraid of making a "witch" angry, so they're reluctant to give a negative rating.

#2) They selected a spell like "lower depression" and because they believed it would work, it did.

#3) They selected a spell like a love spell, planned to ask a woman out, and when the woman said yes, they believe it was the spell, not them that made it work.

#4) This is the most complex one: they see themselves as a "person who believes in magic" and they've paid a price for it. Not only have they wasted time, money, and effort on it, their friends and family make fun of them for it. So, when they purchase a spell and it doesn't work, they still believe in magic because they feel a great need to be consistent to maintain their self-image. They believed in magic with no real evidence those times, before, right? So, they feel a need to do so this time as well, rather than admit all those people who said they were nuts for believing in magic were actually right.

Whatever the case may be, the whole concept is bewitching...get it? Get it? Bewitching! Because she's a witch and casting spells and....ah, never mind!

Bonus eBay Auction: I WILL DO ANYTHING FOR YOU, NO MATTER HOW BAD DISGUSTING, UNETHICAL, OR IMMORAL.

Current price: $1

Al-Aksa Claims Biological, Chemical Capabilities (Free Jerusalem Post Registration Required)

U.S. General in Iraq Outlines Troop Cuts (Free New York Times Reg Req)

Saddam Thinks U.S. Will Beg For His Help

Video Shows Russian Hostages Killed

2 Israelis Die After Terrorists Crawl Through Tunnel To An Attack Israeli Post

Murtha Says U.S. Poses Top Threat To World Peace

Peter King Calls For Probe Of The New York Times And Says: "We're At War, And For The Times To Release Information About Secret Operations And Methods Is Treasonous."

Court Ruling Could Halt Guantanamo Trials

Rasmussen Polling: Bush Approval At 42%

U.S. Population to Hit 300 Million This Fall

Newsweek: The Daily Kos Thinks The Politics Of Iraq Will Help Him Shape The Democratic Party

Harold Hutchison: Why Iraq WMD Finds Were Kept Secret

Mark Steyn: U.S. Can't 'Redeploy' Its Way Out Of Iraq

Lee Siegel: The Origins Of Blogofascism (Another Shot Fired In The New Republic/Kos War)

Mar K: Calling all Pro-McCain Republicans

John Leo: Officeholders Favoring Diversity Ignore Laws They Don't Like

Steven M. Warshawsky: Why Americans Don’t Like Soccer

The Townhall / Salem Merger Merges Talk Radio And Blogging

CAIR Complaining to FBI About Little Green Footballs?

Clowns Sabotage Nuke Missile

Irish Moonbat "Arrests" US Soldiers

Vote For The Hottest Intern On Capitol Hill

Gillard Gate

Jerome Armstrong: "Oh Yea, On The Astrological Stuff. I Have Done The New Age Type Things Over The Years—life’s Never Boring That Way. Down That Line, I Dabbled With Planets And Predictions In The Most Abstract Manner, As One Of Several Different Predictive Mathematical Disciplines, When Coming Out Of Finances And Into Politics During My Early Blogging Days...I Hope To See Those Wingnuts That Are Obsessed With Every Little Thing I Do At The Next Bikram Yoga Or Vipassana Meditation Session In DC."

9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Gather At LA Conference

Gator Stands Upright, Knocks At Door

Photoshop: The New York Times -- Letting The Enemy Know What Uncle Sam Is Up To

Video: Matt Dancing

Video: Kid Caught Singing Gnarls Barkley (Hilarious)

Website Of The Day: Beltway Blogroll