RWN returns on Monday. Until then, consider this to be an open thread, enjoy the links below, and have a great week-end!

Ace Of Spades HQ

Althouse

Ankle Biting Pundits

Betsy's Page

Captain's Quarters

Tim Chapman

Hot Air

Instapundit

Liberal Professor Making Creepy, Veiled Threats Against A Two Year Old Child Of A Blogger?

MS-13 News And Analysis

Power Line

Small Dead Animals

Right Thinking Girl

Townhall Blog

Winds Of Change

Wizbang

"Okay, John, a question: What are your top 5 quotes regarding the respective natures of conservatism (or conservatives) and liberalism (or liberals)?" -- Grognard

Answer: I don't know that these are my top choices, but here are a few pretty good ones that help explain the natures of both liberals and conservatives:

Liberals

"The real terrorist threats are George W. Bush and his band of brown-shirted thugs." -- Sandra Bernhard

"No, no, don't do that, don't do that. If you shoot him, you'll just make him mad." -- Blazing Saddles

"America, America. What did you do--either intentionally or unintentionally--in the world order, in Central America, in Africa where bombs are still blasting? America, what did you do in the global warming conference when you did not embrace the smaller nations? America, what did you do two weeks ago when I stood at the world conference on racism, when you wouldn't show up? Oh, America, what did you do?" -- Former San Francisco Supervisor Amos Brown on September 17, 2001

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." -- Hillary Clinton

"Liberals don't believe there is such a thing as "fact" or "truth." Everything is a struggle for power between rival doctrines." -- Ann Coulter

"While the form of treachery varies slightly from case to case, liberals always manage to take the position that most undermines American security." -- Ann Coulter

"It is not strange... to mistake change for progress." -- Millard Fillmore

"My analysis is that most faith based systems depend upon an absolute moral order. The declaration of things as absolutely evil or absolutely good, as sin or virtue, puts liberalism into a horrible position because it's founded on no judgement on anything. As a result, any faith that is seriously practiced or understood is a challenge to the politics that depend on constituencies that would rather not be told that their choices are bad and their lives are not virtuous." -- Hugh Hewitt

"It is an embarrassing time to be an American. It really is. It's humiliating." -- Jessica Lange

"And many writers have imagined for themselves republics and principalities that have never been seen or known to exist in reality; for there is such a gap between how one lives and how one ought to live that anyone who abandons what is done for what ought to be done learns his ruin rather than his preservation: for a man who wishes to profess goodness at all times will come to ruin among so many who are not good." -- Niccolo Machiavelli

"The vision of the anointed is one in which ills as poverty, irresponsible sex, and crime derive primarily from 'society,' rather than from individual choices and behavior. To believe in personal responsibility would be to destroy the whole special role of the anointed, whose vision casts them in the role of rescuers of people treated unfairly by 'society'." -- Thomas Sowell

"For the anointed, traditions are likely to be seen as the dead hand of the past, relics of a less enlightened age, and not as the distilled experience of millions who faced similar human vicissitudes before." -- Thomas Sowell

Conservatives

"The chief business of the American people is business." -- Calvin Coolidge

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." -- Ben Franklin

"I know what you're thinking, "Did he fire six shots, or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But, being that this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya punk?" -- Dirty Harry

"Nobody spends somebody else's money as carefully as he spends his own. Nobody uses somebody else's resources as carefully as he uses his own. So if you want efficiency and effectiveness, if you want knowledge to be properly utilized, you have to do it through the means of private property." -- Milton Friedman

"Christianity stands for freedom, we don't want to impose our religion on everyone else. We just don't want secular humanist values or homosexual values to be forced upon us under the guise of anti-harassment laws, speech codes, hate crime laws, or sensitivity training. We want to be free to think and express our views in the public arena or anywhere we want to. We want to be free to practice our religion with impunity because that was central to our founding in this country. We will accord you the exact same rights, whoever you are. You have the right to freedom of worship, but we just want a level playing field. We don't want to be singled out, discriminated against, or treated without tolerance by those for whom tolerance is the highest virtue." -- David Limbaugh

"A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them." -- P.J. O'Rourke

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself" -- John Stuart Mill

"General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" -- Ronald Reagan

"Patriotism is as much a virtue as justice, and is as necessary for the support of societies as natural affection is for the support of families." -- Benjamin Rush

"There are no solutions; there are only trade-offs." -- Thomas Sowell

"...Conservatives have excellent credentials to speak about human rights. By our efforts, and with precious little help from self-styled liberals, we were largely responsible for securing liberty for a substantial share of the world's population and defending it for most of the rest." -- Margaret Thatcher

"...The defence budget is one of the very few elements of public expenditure that can truly be described as essential. This point was well-made by a robust Labour Defence Minister, Denis (Now Lord) Healey, many years ago: 'Once we have cut expenditure to the extent where our security is imperilled, we have no houses, we have no hospitals, we have no schools. We have a heap of cinders.' -- Margaret Thatcher

Question: "What in the wide wide world of sports is going on with the media and Ann Coulter? ...actually, I'm talking about her alleged plagiarism." -- easytokikalib

Answer: Liberals despise Ann Coulter so much that they'll smear her with anything and everything they can think of, whether it has any validity or not.

Because of that, ever so often, there seems to be some liberal blogger accusing Coulter of plagiarism. Here's one I wrote about back in August of 2005 just to give you an example:

"There has been a claim floating around on the left that Ann Coulter plagiarized some other writers in a column called "Thou shalt not commit religion." It's complete bunk. Coulter listed 23 pieces of speech that have been "funded in whole or in part by taxpayers." The "plagiarism" here is supposed to be that several of the items appeared on other lists in conservative publications and that in some cases, the wording was similar. Gee, maybe's it's just me, but how many different ways are there to say "A female performer inserting a speculum into her vagina and inviting audience members on stage to view her cervix with a flashlight?" The lefties are just being silly."

Now there's some guy named John Barrie claiming that he found "textbook plagiarism," in Coulter's work. I've taken a look through his examples and some others that were provided.

Most of them are something like, "Coulter used a few quotes that someone else did, too. Look, the words are the same in the quotes, so it's plagiarism!" But, if you look through the work of any big name columnists and compare it to everything else ever written on the subject, you'll find a few sentences and paragraphs that look roughly the same as things others have written simply because they're writing about the same topic. Heck, there's one particular right-of-center columnist (I won't say which one) who wrote several columns in a row talking about topics that were covered in posts that came out earlier in the same week on RWN. Does that mean he was cribbing my material or even reading Right Wing News at all? No. It just means that people of a like mind may take note of the same topics and say similar things about them. There's nothing unusual about that.

In any case, in my opinion, the only thing that could fairly be said to rise to the level of plagiarism in all the examples provided was this:

Example 1, Page 5 (Of Godless): “The massive Dickey-Lincoln Dam, a $227 million hydroelectric project proposed on upper St. John River in Maine, was halted by the discovery of the Furbish lousewort, a plant previously believed to be extinct.”

Alleged Source: “The massive Dickey-Lincoln Dam, a $ 227 million hydroelectric project proposed on upper St. John River, is halted by the discovery of the Furbish lousewort, a plant believed to be extinct.” (“People and events that made Maine's century,” Portland Press-Herald, Dec. 12, 1999 (Not available online)(Identified by Rude Pundit, John Barrie/New York Post)

Since this is a very insignificant paragraph in a 280 page book with hundreds of citations, my best guess would be that Ann just made a mistake and didn't quote and cite something that she should have. In my opinion, that's no big deal and again, if it was someone like Maureen Dowd or Thomas Friedman who made a mistake like that, no one would even notice it in the first place or make a huge issue out of it if they did (although Ann should have that corrected in the next printing of the book).

It's also worth noting that Crown Publishing, the group that put out Godless, seems to look at this issue about the same way:

"Steve Ross, senior vice president of Crown Publishing group, which published the book, defended his best-selling polemicist by noting there are 19 pages of endnotes.

"We have reviewed the allegations of plagiarism surrounding 'Godless' and found them to be as trivial and meritless as they are irresponsible," Ross said.

"The number of words used by our author in these snippets is so minimal that there is no requirement for attribution."

So is Ann Coulter a plagiarist? In my opinion, no; mistakenly leaving out a single citation in a book doesn't justify that charge.

Question: "Do you think GWB has really come around in his thinking on immigration? Does he really believe in "enforcement first" or is he just blowing smoke? Is the Pence compromise nothing more than a sham, still more lipstick on a very ugly pig?" -- Cartman

Answer: The only thing Bush did was take one step towards the House because he absolutely had no other choice but to do so if he's going to get a bill passed.

The House has correctly figured out that doing what Bush wants on illegal immigration is the political equivalent of taking cyanide and there's just no way they're going to support the amnesty plan that Bush wants. So, if Bush wanted to get a bill through, he had no choice but to take a step towards them.

Has he "come around" on the subject? Absolutely not. George Bush has proven over and over and over again that he wants as many illegal immigrants pouring over the border as he can get -- and while he's a fine President in a lot of areas, I don't trust him on illegal immigration one iota more than I'd trust Ted Kennedy.

As far as the Pence compromise goes, it's a terrible idea that is significantly worse than what the Senate has come up with in many respects. In fact, the only reason people are paying any attention to it at all is because they haven't looked at the details of the plan and they just figure that if Mike Pence came up with it, it must be good. Mike Pence is an excellent Congressman who has done a lot for the country, but he has gone way off the rails with this atrocious immigration plan. Take a look at some of the features:

-- An unlimited number of guest workers would be allowed for the first three years. By the way, when I say unlimited, I mean unlimited. It is as many as businesses want to bring in and all of them will eventually be eligible to become US citizens.

-- At the 3 year mark,

"The plan would cede congressional constitutional authority over immigration to a presidential appointee who could expand the number of immigrants by millions. The power to transform America irrevocably would be granted to a bureaucrat to be named later by a president to be elected later. How many voting, legalized immigrants does Pence think would be too many for a President Hillary?" -- Congressman Steve King

-- From Tom Tancredo:

"The Pence plan includes no prevailing wage standard for foreign workers—it simply relies on the good will of employers to “try to hire American workers” before offering jobs under the new foreign worker visa. In fact, almost all current visas require employers to offer the job to American workers before seeking foreign labor, but with no enforcement mechanism, the requirement is laughable."

-- It's an amnesty plan that allows the illegal aliens that are already here to simply go to Mexico on vacation for a week, run through an "Ellis Island Center," and come right back to the US.

-- Here are a few more miscellaneous complaints from Mark Krikorian:

"There are plenty of other reasons to dismiss the Pence plan as unserious: by not calling for an end to automatic citizenship at birth, it makes the “temporary” claim meaningless; his gimmick of having the private sector screen the workers misses the point that they will still need to use (and receive security clearances for access to) the very same databases that the FBI and Department of Homeland Security use now; and to get “temporary” workers, employers will merely have to attest that they tried to hire Americans, rather than using objective measures to determine need, like rising wages or low unemployment in the specific occupation in question."

As you can see, in many respects, Pence's plan is MUCH WORSE than the McCain/Kennedy/Reid bill being touted by the Senate and hopefully people won't get snookered by it just because Mike Pence has attached his name to this abomination.

Question: "Can a Mormon be President? I speak specifically of Mitt Romney. Is our country as free of prejudice as we would like to believe, or is being a Mormon an impediment toward holding higher office still acceptable to an American society that regards itself as enlightened and tolerant?

Romney would be a much more attractive candidate than Juan McCain, the grizzled piece of merde en bas de soie from Arizona. I would work for his candidacy in a heartbeat if it's a choice between him and McCain." -- Cartman

Answer: Could a Mormon be President? Even though they have some religious beliefs that a lot of Americans find strange and off-putting in a President, I think it's conceivable that a Mormon could pull it off. However, the Mormon who will be running, Mitt Romney, is a RINO from Massachusetts who's going to be running in an election cycle when the base is going to desperately want a rock-ribbed conservative. I sincerely doubt if Mitt will be the nominee -- and since you mentioned him, the same goes for McCain -- although his base, the mainstream press, keeps trying to shoehorn him into the front-runner role.

Also see,

Q&A Friday #20: Why Would Being A Mormon Hurt Romney At The Polls In 2008?

Question: "Last week in your Q&A Friday segment, you stated you'd like to know if we had any top level spies in Al-Qaeda. What would make you think that we do?" -- JSensation

Answer: We're a big country, with wide open borders, and we have a practically uncountable number of soft or unprotected, high value targets for terrorists to hit. Yet, other than some freelance attacks (ex: The DC area snipers), we haven't been hit.

That seems to be a rather significant and puzzling failure on Al-Qaeda's part. Just imagine the impact of a half-dozen terrorists attacking an elementary school or blowing themselves up in a crowded area. It would be a big morale booster for Al-Qaeda, the media would spread hysteria, the Democrats would use it to attack Al-Qaeda's most hated enemy, George Bush -- and still we've seen nothing.

Sure, we have had some effective counter-terrorism programs, have torn up Al-Qaeda's leadership structure, and have kept them busy in Iraq, but surely they'd have gotten a handful of guys through by now...unless we've got someone on the inside letting us know about their operations.

Keep in mind that it usually takes them a long time to finance and plan these attacks. If we had a turncoat on the inside, feeding us information, it probably wouldn't be too hard for us to find a way to foil the attack without letting Al-Qaeda know how we got the info. Maybe a terrorist gets caught going through customs. Maybe they "just happen" to get picked up for speeding. There are so many ways we could bust these guys without tipping our hand.

So, when it comes right down to it, the fact that Al-Qaeda hasn't managed to hit us again since 9/11, despite the fact that it shouldn't be that hard and that they should be highly motivated to do so, is what makes me think we may have a man on the inside feeding us info.

Question: "After all of the initial buzz, positive and negative, about Pajamas Media, how would you rate their success and the impact they have had?" -- Buckley_F_Williams

Answer: Pajamas started out with an enormous wave of attention that was quickly followed by a similarly enormous wave of criticism.

One of the biggest attacks on them was that their website design was awful. That problem seems to have been solved because they have a superb layout now and are pumping out lots of content from their member blogs. So, they're looking good in that area.

However, from there on out, things look a little shakier.

The enormous buzz around Pajamas Media has really died down and although they do a project here and there to draw in a little extra attention, they really don't seem to be much discussed in the blogosphere these days.

Traffic wise, I don't know how much their main page does, but it only seems to deliver a couple of hundred hits from a link. Based on that and their Alexa ranking, I'm going to speculate that they do between 12,500-17,500 daily uniques per day. That might be a little high or a little low, but with no open statistics counter, it's a best guess.

As far as their expenses and ad revenue goes, it's impossible to say with the opaque way that they operate, but I suspect that they have much lower ad rates than people realize and with their limited volume, high overhead, and contracts, I'd have to guess that they've lost a lot of money since they debuted last November.

They've also still been unable to make any headway in pulling in a significant number of left-of-center blogs and don't seem to be appealing much to blogs outside of the "club." PJ Media is currently the 478th most linked website in the The Truth Laid Bear Ecosystem which is, to tell you the truth, pretty bad for a website of their size.

It's also rather noteworthy that, for whatever reason, they seem to be adding very few new blogs onto the roster. I'm only counting 89 "PJ Bloggers" on their side bar.

As far as their impact goes, they haven't done anything revolutionary so far, but you never know what the future holds for PJM. They certainly have a lot of talented bloggers under contract, they should still be flush with cash after initially receiving 3.5 million dollars, and Charles Johnson & Roger Simon are both sharp guys. So, who knows what the future holds for them? Hopefully, they'll turn out to be very successful.

Full Disclosure: I run the Conservative Blog Advertising Network for a Pajamas Media competitor, Blogads.

Question: "If you had to categorize Al Qaeda on the right or left, would you say they were leftist or rightist?" -- D-Vega

Answer: Since they tend to believe in total state control over every aspect of people's lives from what kind of business they can run right down to how much facial hair they have, I'd say they're more properly identified as being on the left than the right.

But in all fairness, their beliefs don't really fit on any sort of modern political scale. The radical Islamists are trying to follow a political blueprint that a man, Muhammad, invented roughly 1400 years ago to try to keep control over a bunch of tribesmen and bandits. Those same rules that worked so well back then are hopelessly inapplicable to the modern world in many respects for reasons that go well beyond divisions between liberalism and conservatism.

Foreign

Claim: N. Korea Missile Aimed At Area Off Hawaii

Japan Wants Missile Defense 'As Soon As Possible': Defense Chief

Calderon Wins Mexican Presidency By Razor-Thin Margin

U.S. Calls Iraqi Rape-Murder 'Inexcusable'

Domestic

Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) And Jim Demint (R-S.C.) Are Blocking The Immigration Bill From Being Sent To Conference

Ga. Top Court Reinstates Gay Marriage Ban

NY Court Rules Against Gay Marriage

Judge's Ruling Keeps Tom DeLay On Ballot

Poll Shows Re-Election Chances Strong For Schwarzenegger

Bush Says He Hopes Enron's Lay Was 'Right With The Lord'

Joe Biden: "In Delaware, The Largest Growth In The Population Is Indian-Americans... Moving From India. You Cannot Go To A 7-11 Or A Dunkin' Donuts, Unless You Have A Slight Indian Accent. No, I'm Not Joking."

Columns

The Examiner: Where Are ‘Star Wars’ Critics Now?

Betsy Newmark: Fed Up With The Founders?

Ronald Kessler: McCain's Out-Of-Control Anger -- Does He Have The Temperament To Be President?

Charles Krauthammer: Emergency Over, Saith the Court (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Investor's Business Daily: The Rotten Fruit Of Appeasement

Hugh Hewitt Has His Wednesday Chat With Mark Steyn

Left-Overs

Former Taliban Ambassador Denied Yale Admission

Death For Apostasy Advocated In Lansing, Michigan

A Car That Can Drive Itself At 150MPH

Subway Rider Sliced in Power Saw Attack

Website Of The Day: Sixers

Today will be Q&A Friday #44 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!

PS: Since this is kind of a slower week where a lot of people are on vacation, I decided to go ahead and do another Q&A Friday today. Afterwards, look for Q&A Friday to go back to the regularly scheduled every other week format.

This is the greatest post in the history of the Democratic Underground. You just have to see it to believe it.

Here's a little sample to give you an idea of what it's like, although it doesn't quite do it justice:

"What I conclude is that a fairly flimsy steel structure does not distort and bend and collapse very easily from a simple hydrocarbon fire. And thus, it is not clear why the much stronger steel columns in the WTC towers weakened so much from fires that the towers underwent global collapse."

According to the The Christian Science Monitor, conservatives are more patriotic than liberals:

"...In Monitor interviews conducted during the July 4 weekend, words such as "love" and "loyalty" toward America flow easily, as do expressions of belief in the ideals of freedom and democracy. Perhaps it should come as no surprise, then, that the latest global survey on "national pride," a close cousin of patriotism, found that Americans ranked No. 1 among the 34 democracies polled.

"We've always been at or near the top," going back at least 50 years, says Tom Smith, author of the report released last week by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago.

Of the 10 areas the survey gauged, the United States ranked highest in five - pride in its democracy, its political influence, economy, science, and military. (The other five areas were history, sports, arts/literature, fair and equal treatment of groups, and social security system.) Given America's status as the world's only superpower, the top overall ranking comes as little surprise, says Mr. Smith. The surveys were conducted in 2003 and 2004.

Now, in the summer of 2006, with the Iraq war, immigration, and the American flag occupying political discourse, a snapshot of US patriotism looks more tempered. A Gallup poll released July 3 finds that American national pride has sunk back to pre-9/11 levels, with 57 percent of Americans saying they are "extremely proud" to be American, compared with 55 percent in January 2001. Among the seven subsequent Gallup surveys asking that question, the high point for "extremely proud" was 70 percent in June 2003.

The numbers have declined among all political subgroups: Conservatives have declined from an average of 79 percent "extremely proud" in the 2002-2004 period to 71 percent today. Moderates are 56 percent "extremely proud" today versus 68 percent in '02-'04. And liberals are down to 40 percent "extremely proud" today, from 55 percent before."

Yes, even at the apex of their patriotism, only 55% of liberals were proud to be Americans. Now it's down to 40%. But, conservatives are still at 71%. That means there are 177.5 patriotic conservatives for every 100 patriotic liberals. To tell you the truth, that still sounds like it's overrepresenting the number of patriotic liberals, but a lot of liberals probably didn't feel comfortable admitting that they're not patriotic, even in an anonymous survey.

In any case, we now know that percentage wise, liberals are less patriotic than conservatives because they've finally admitted it. Sure they may be unpatriotic, but let's at least applaud them for their honesty.

Hat tip to Dani Cutler for the story.

"Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean called the rationale used in a decision by the New York appeals court reaffirming a ban on gay marriage "bigoted and outdated," RAW STORY has learned.

..."Today's decision by the New York Court of Appeals, which relies on outdated and bigoted notions about families, is deeply disappointing, but it does not end the effort to achieve this goal." -- Howard Dean via The Raw Story on June 6, 2006

"The Democratic Party platform from 2004 says that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what it says." -- Howard Dean on May 10, 2006 incorrectly stating the Democratic Platform while he was on The 700 Club attempting to reach out to Christians.

The two best blogger pics with Ann Coulter: Moxie via Cathy Seipp (2nd pic down) and Pam from Atlas Shrugs.

The two funniest blogs you probably don't already regularly read: Potfry & The Nose On Your Face.

The two biggest masters of the sarcastic putdown: Hog On Ice & Tim Blair.

The two bloggers who would probably be the most interesting conversationalists about things other than politics: Dr. Helen & Ana Marie Cox.

Two of the best inside baseball blogs for political junkies: RedState & Tim Chapman.

The two best niche bloggers: Little Green Footballs & The Radio Equalizer.

Two "just because" links": Right Thinking Girl because she's a buddy of mine and Expose the Left (Thanks for the technical help!)

The two best blogs you're probably not reading now, but should bookmark: Brainster's Blog & JackLewis (full disclosure: he's my blog tech guy.)

The two best "big media" blogs: Newsbusters & The Corner.

The two best left-of-center blogs: Kausfiles & Wonkette.

My 4th and final attack on Jerome Corsi's conspiracy theory series that claims George Bush is going to, "dissolve the United States of America into the North American Unio and " merge our currency into a US/Canadian/Mexican "Amero," is now up at Human Events.

This time, I stopped pulling my punches. Here are a couple of samples:

"...Jerome doesn't want to admit that he got his facts wrong and that there's nothing scary about building a road. Jerome, is there something you want to tell us about why you're so afraid of a road? Was someone you loved paved over when you were a child?"

"...I'm glad to have had a chance to point out the sort of gibberish you're spouting on the pages of Human Events, even if I have had to suffer the indignity of debating this complete stupidity, which is about two steps removed from arguing over whether the moon is made of green cheese."

Enjoy!

Update #1: Jerome Corsi responded to my latest post with 2400+ words of pure sophistry, none of which did anything to counter the arguments I made or advance Jerome's bizarre theories.

Apparently, Jerome wants to continue the debate. However, I'm mindful of something Rush Limbaugh said today: If you argue with an idiot long enough, soon people have trouble telling the difference between you and an idiot.

You know, I was saying nice things about Corsi way back in 2004 when he was a member of the Swift Boat Vets for truth and I was pleased to see that he wrote a book with Jim Gilchrist from the Minutemen (who I hold in high regard). That's why it's really too bad to see him permanently destroying his credibility with this wacko conspiracy theory. But, for whatever reason, he's decided to go down this road that can only lead to embarrassment and humiliation.

PS: Oh, I wish I would have seen this earlier. Apparently Jerome Corsi didn't even realize that Canada is already part of NAFTA.

"Secretly, the Bush administration is pursuing a policy to expand NAFTA to include Canada, setting the stage for North American Union designed to encompass the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. What the Bush administration truly wants is the free, unimpeded movement of people across open borders with Mexico and Canada."

Apparently someone clued him in though, because that enormous blunder has been removed from the original article although it Googles in a number of places. (See here and here for two examples.)

"(The Illegal Immigration debate) is eerily reminiscent of the welfare debate, in which anti-welfare candidates sincerely bashed welfare and pro-welfare candidates insincerely bashed welfare. We know how that turned out." -- Mickey Kaus

The United Nations Security Council, outraged at this week’s missile tests by a nuclear capable North Korea, takes up debate today on a resolution to sanction that nation’s dictator with “one minute of time-out for each missile launched.”

According to a draft resolution being circulated by the Russian ambassador to the U.N., the time-out sanction would mean that North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il would have to “sit still in a comfortable chair with his hands on his knees, and could not speak to anyone for a full seven minutes, unless he has to go to the bathroom, or get a drink, or if he gets a bellyache, at which point the U.N. would be compelled to provide humanitarian aide.”

The resolution calls for a U.N. team to travel to Pyongyang to monitor compliance.

Although the U.S., Japan and South Korea are said to support such an aggressive response, because it would force Mr. Kim to “think about what he has done,” China threatened to wield its veto power.

“Punishment does not correct behavior,” said an unnamed Chinese diplomat, “because the bad behavior springs from low self-esteem, and sanctions would only make Mr. Kim feel worse about himself.”

“We must find ways to catch Mr. Kim doing good things and then praise him for it,” the source said, “and if he continues to launch missiles, it should only increase our sympathy for him.”

A leading U.S. psychologist agreed with the Chinese strategy.

“It’s likely that Mr. Kim had a rough childhood,” said the unnamed expert, “since his Dad spent most of his time at work being revered as a god, and probably never said ‘I love you’ to little Kim.”

This satire was used with the permission of Scrappleface.

Don Surber is pointing out that despite the fact that bloggers are being hired as consultants and blogs are being touted as "kingmaker(s)," they're not really having as big of an impact as you might imagine.

From Surber:

"As fund-raisers, the blogs are pretty much a bust. Their top three fundraisers are $79K out of the $776K Lamont has raised, $39K out of the $846K Tester has raised, and $14K out of the $547K Webb has raised."

There's has been a lot of talk about Kos's big losing streak and to the best of my knowledge, he has never pushed a candidate who has beaten a Republican. But even if he did, looking at those numbers, what would make anyone think Kos deserved the credit for the win?

If, let's say, Tester managed to knock off Conrad Burns, why should the netroots get credit for that when they've only delivered about 4.6% of his funding?

If, let's say, I can convince a few big bloggers to get together and endorse George Allen over Webb or Burns over Tester, and our guys win, does that mean the righties get to stomp around and talk about how powerful we are while Republican candidates throw us $50,000 dollar parties? Please....

The blogosphere makes a difference, we really do, and it is better for a politician to have us on his side than against him. But are we kingmakers? Do politicians need to kiss our rings? No way.

During the last Governor's race in California, porn star Mary Carey ran, as a Republican, and of course, couldn't overcome the governator.

Well apparently, the publicity must have worked really well because another porn star named Melody "Mimi Miyagi" Damayo is running for governor of Nevada, again, as a Republican.

Here are some of her beliefs:

2. "I believe that each individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruits of his labor, so far as it no wise interferes with any other man's rights; that each community, as a state, has a right to do exactly as it pleases with all the concerns within the State that interfere with no other State . "Abraham Lincoln

4. Republicans fought to abolish slavery, give blacks equal rights and then the vote. Many Republican politicians risked their careers on that period's "third rail" of politics.(GOP)

6. The Republican Party also played a leading role in securing women the right to vote. In 1896, Republicans were the first major party to favor women's suffrage.

7. Republicans have a long and rich history with basic principles: Individuals, not government, can make the best decisions; all people are entitled to equal rights; and decisions are best made close to home.

Here's her platform:

1. Anti-Stalking Legislature Enforcement
2. Reduce waiting time processing police reports for victims of crime.
3. Tougher laws on domestic violence abusers.
4. Remove newly added business tax laws on entertainers. (*We're already paying Federal taxes.)
5. Legalizing strip clubs in hotels.
6. Against political corruption.
7. Against judicial activism.
8. For Free Speech.
9. For reducing prices at the pump.
10. For reducing youth gang violence

I think her agenda is a bit too stripper-related and a little bit too general, but it's still better than John Kerry's agenda in 2004.

Interesting question: Carey was a Republican, Miyagi is a Republican...is this standard? On the one hand, the "We must ban porn crowd" is mostly Republican. On the other hand, if you hate taxes, regulations, and being soft on criminals, issues that would all probably be near and dear to a porn star's heart, it makes sense that you'd be a Republican

Either way, the important thing here is that, wow, does she look saucy in that outfit or what? Wow...

Foreign

US Interceptors Were Ready For North Korean Missile

S.Korea Media: More N. Korea Rockets Ready

Hamas Rocket Attack 'Act Of War'. Missile Hits Strategic Town, Israelis Vow Major Response

Mexico Conservative Leads in Mexico Vote Recount

2 Somalis Killed for Watching World Cup

BBC Apologizes After Host Tells Listeners He Wanted George Bush "To Rot In Hell".

Domestic

Limbaugh Won't Be Charged Over Viagra Found In His Possession

Enron Founder, Former Chairman Kenneth Lay Dead Of A Heart Attack

Atlantic City Casinos Shut Down Over State Budget Dispute

Columns

Douglas Kern: When Superman Shrugs

Ann Coulter: Top Secret Interview Exposed!

Michelle Malkin: The Newspaper of Wreckage

Victor Davis Hanson: The Israel Enigma

Deborah Orin: Hillary Suddenly Has '08 Jitters

Left-Overs

Canada: Police Seek 'Despicable' Men Who Urinated On War Monument

Ned Lamont For Senate And...What Are You Doing To That Little Girl Ned? (I Doubt If He Was Trying To Be Inappropriate, But It Still Looks A Little Freaky)

Man Shows Crowds Fallen Piece Of His Skull

A Veteran City Cop Is Convinced The Voice Of Murdered Prostitute Rachel Quinney Was Picked Up On An Audio Recording As She Spoke From Beyond The Grave (Oh Geeze)

Humor: What Talks With Iran Are Really Like

Video: No More Kings (I Remember That From When I Was A Kid)

Website Of The Day: Townhall Blog

Sadly, Democrats have managed to trick a lot of black Americans into believing that the GOP is a racist party. But, in truth, the Democratic Party was, is, and will likely continue to be the home of far more racists than the GOP. Let me explain why I say that...

To begin with, the Republican Party was founded by anti-slavery activists, in contrast to the pro-slavery Democratic Party. It was Abe Lincoln, a Republican President, who led the North to victory in the civil war and freed the slaves while the Democrats did everything in their power to keep black Americans down.

Fast forward to 1898 in Wilmington, NC where Democrats murdered black Republicans so they could stage, "the nation's only recorded coup d'etat." Then, in 1922, Democrats in the Senate filibustered a Republican attempt to make lynching a federal crime. A little later on, FDR nominated former Klansman Hugo Black to the Supreme Court. Contrast that to Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who actually "sent troops" to insure that schools in Little Rock, Arkansas were desegregated and ordered the, "complete desegregation of the Armed Forces." Noticing any trends?

But, that was such a long time ago, right? Things really changed in the sixties, didn't they? Yes, Americans -- particularly black Americans -- really owe Democratic President Lyndon Johnson a debt of gratitude for destroying American families and causing the number of illegitimate births to skyrocket -- by pushing entitlement programs that made it much easier to have children out of wedlock.

Remember George "segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever" Wallace standing in the door of an Alabama schoolhouse to keep black children from being able to go to school with whites? George Wallace was a Democrat. Remember Bull Connor turning water hoses and dogs on civil rights protestors? Bull Connor was a Democrat.

But, what about the revolutionary Civil Rights Act of 1964? That's where the Democrats showed their mettle and Republicans were proven to be racists. Right? Wrong. 82% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 versus only 64% of Democrats. Furthermore, a few years later, it was Republican Richard Nixon who first put teeth behind Affirmative Action.

But, what about today? You'd think that with Democrats receiving upwards of 90% of the black vote in some cases, that there would be few, if any, prominent black Republicans while black Americans would be amongst the biggest power players in the Democratic Party. However, the opposite has often turned out to be true. Once you look past the gerrymandered districts that have to remain in place because so many liberal whites simply won't vote for black candidates (There are only 5 black Democrats in the House representing majority white districts), you'll see that the Republican Party has surpassed the Democrats in many areas.

Who's the only black American currently on the Supreme Court? Clarence Thomas. The first black Secretary of State? Colin Powell. The first black woman ever to be a Secretary of State? Condi Rice.

Who's one of the fill-ins for the most popular conservative radio host on earth, Rush Limbaugh? Walter Williams. The most desired 2008 nominee as selected by the right side of the blogosphere in 2006? Condi Rice. Who did those same bloggers select as the most desired nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor when she retired? Janice Rogers Brown tied for first place. Meanwhile, what do we see from Democrats? We see Oreo cookies being thrown at Michael Steele and black Republicans being called "Uncle Toms" and compared to "Aunt Jemima."

Moreover, let's take a look at a couple of studies that actually set out to compare how racist Republicans and Democrats actually are. First off, a professor from Yale looked at voting patterns and she found that:

...(W)hite Republicans nationally are 25 percentage points more likely on average to vote for the Democratic senatorial candidate when the GOP hopeful is black. ...In House races, white Democrats are 38 percentage points less likely to vote Democratic if their candidate is black."

It would have been interesting for them to poll black Republicans and Democrats as well, for comparison's sake, but however you slice it, there are a lot more white Democrats than white Republicans willing to defect to the other side rather than vote for a black candidate.

Then there is another study, this time from a professor at Stanford -- of how much government largesse Democrats and Republicans believe people deserved to be given after Katrina -- and, surprise, surprise: Democrats behaved in a racist fashion while Republicans didn't:

"But for Democrats, race mattered -- and in a disturbing way. Overall, Democrats were willing to give whites about $1,500 more than they chose to give to a black or other minority...." Republicans are likely to be more stringent, both in terms of money and time, Iyengar said. "However, their position is 'principled' in the sense that it stems from a strong belief in individualism (as opposed to handouts). Thus their responses to the assistance questions are relatively invariant across the different media conditions. Independents and Democrats, on the other hand, are more likely to be affected by racial cues."

Here's the reality: there are racists in both parties. But, there are a lot more of them in the Democratic Party and there always have been. But ironically, Democrats have managed to use the GOP's belief in a colorblind America against us. Because so many Democrats have no problem with using racial discrimination for political purposes, they'll support policies like reparations, Affirmative Action, and racial quotas that Republicans simply won't. Then they deftly distort and exploit incidents like the Katrina rescue efforts and Bill Bennett's condemnation of the idea that black babies could be aborted to reduce the crime rate to convince black Americans that the GOP hates black Americans.

This is all despite the fact that for a large number of black Americans, the GOP is a much better fit than the Democratic Party. The GOP is the party that's friendly to religion, anti-abortion, against gay marriage, tough on crime, and for low taxes and school vouchers. Yet, so many black Americans have been deceived into sticking with the Democrats even though the Dems do so many things that are harmful to our country as a whole and to black Americans in particular.

That's why if you're a black American who thinks the GOP better represents your views than the Democratic Party, then it's time to join the Republican Party. Don't let the Democrats lie to you and tell you that the GOP is full of racists, especially when there are so many distinguished black Americans out there who can tell you otherwise. Look to Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Rod Paige, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Larry Elder, J.C. Watts, Michael Steele, Ken Blackwell, Lynn Swann -- and you'll see that the GOP judges people not "by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

I've fired a third salvo at Jerome Corsi's kooky series of articles that claims George Bush is going to, "dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union," merge our currency into a US/Canadian/Mexican "Amero,"...and then there's the road. I have never seen someone try to make the expansion of a highway into the centerpiece of a massive North American conspiracy before, but there's a first time for everything.

Anyway, Corsi hasn't responded to my latest batch of questions yet, but his wacky column today reads like an answer to number #3, about the highway (although I doubt if he saw it before he sent in the column). Here's the latest alarmist tripe from Corsi (emphasis mine):

"Today, there are some 5,000 miles of interstate highway in the U.S. and the TxDOT is proposing a full build-out of the TTC network that will build some 4,000 miles of TTC Super-Highways in Texas over the next 50 years. The TTC project at full development will involve the removal of as much as 584,000 acres of productive Texas farm and ranchland from the tax rolls permanently, while displacing upwards of 1 million people from their current residences. The 11 separate corridors planned will permanently cut across some 1,200 Texas roads, with cross-over unlikely for much of the nearly quarter-mile corridor planned to be built. Our research shows that dozens of small towns in Texas will be virtually obliterated in the bath of the advancing TTC behemoth. Reviewing statistics such as these, we can see why NASCO might prefer a low profile, preferring to stay below the radar of public scrutiny."

So now, Bush's secret conspiracy to turn America into Mexi-meri-anada will take 50 years to be fully completed? What will that make Bush, 110? Maybe he'll just be a brain in a tank by then sending telepathic signals that tell people to build more of those roads that terrify Jerome so much.

I feel like I'm debating someone over whether the moon is made of green cheese or not. Heck, at this point, I wouldn't be surprised if Jerome mentioned lizard people or the Illuminati in his next column. Really, I wouldn't...

Update #1: Corsi has responded. He wrote 2000 words and still couldn't answer a single question I asked. It's a very weak response indeed...

Hat tip to Atlas Shrugs for the graphic.

Right Wing News emailed more than 225 right-of-center bloggers and asked them to answer some questions about illegal immigration. Representatives from the following 52 blogs responded...

Aaron's CC, Absinthe & Cookies, AnalPhilosopher, Annika's Journal, Atlas Shrugs, Barking Moonbat Early Warning System, Blue Crab Boulevard, Boi From Troy, BrothersJudd Blog, Cold Fury, Conservative Outpost, Cox & Forkum, DANEgerus Weblog, dcthornton.com, Drumwaster's Rants, Eckernet, Election Projection, Euphoric Reality, Flynn Files, Fraters Libertas, David Frum's Blog, Guardian Watchblog, Hog Haven, In The Bullpen, Inoperable Terran, Inside Larry's Head, Iowa Voice, The Hedgehog Report, JackLewis, The Jawa Report, JustOneMinute, Moxie, Newsbeat1, The Nose On Your Face, The Pink Flamingo Bar & Grill, Poliblog, PoliPundit, Potfry, PrestoPundit, QandO, The Real Ugly American, Right Angle Blog, Right Thinking Girl, Right Wing News, Say Anything, Sister Toldjah, Six Meat Buffet, Slobokan's Site Of Schtuff, Solomonia, Stolen Thunder, Stop The ACLU, Winds Of Change

What I asked these bloggers to do was to answer (A) or (B) on the following 14 questions. If there was no response to a particular question or their answer was inapplicable (Ex: "I choose C because..."), then their response was not included in the final tally.

Without further ado, here are their answers to the questions (percentage first and then the number of actual people who selected that option following):

1) Do you think the Senate Immigration Bill or the House Immigration Bill would be best for America?

A) Senate Immigration Bill (12% -- 6)
B) House Immigration Bill (88% -- 44)

2) Do you think passing legislation similar to the Senate Immigration Bill or the House Immigration Bill would most benefit the Republican Party in the 2006 elections?

A) Senate Immigration Bill (9% -- 4)
B) House Immigration Bill (91% -- 43)

3) When it comes to immigration law, which of these two options best describes the approach you believe we should take:

A) I think we need to work on enforcement, securing the border, a guest worker program, increasing the number of legal immigrants allowed to become Americans, and legalization of illegals currently here all at the same time. (14% -- 7)

B) I think we need to work on enforcement and controlling the border first, before working on a guest worker program, increasing the number of legal immigrants allowed to become Americans, and legalization of illegals currently here. (86% -- 44)

4) Do you believe the illegal immigrants who are currently in the United States should be allowed to become US citizens?

A) Yes, if they pay some of their back taxes, pay a fine, and learn English. (27% -- 13)

B) No, because they came here illegally to begin with and it will encourage more illegal aliens to come to the United States. (73% -- 35)

5) Do you believe that if the Federal Government cracks down on businesses hiring illegal immigrants and makes it very difficult for "undocumented workers" to get a job, that the vast majority of illegals currently in the United States will self-deport?

A) No (31% -- 15)
B) Yes (69% -- 34)

6) The Senate Plan includes provisions that, according to some estimates, could increase the number of immigrants allowed to become American citizens by 47 million over the next 20 years. The House Bill contains no such provisions. So, if you had to choose:

A) Would you like to see as many as 47 million additional immigrants allowed to become American citizens over the next 20 years? (16% -- 8)

B) Would you like to see the number of immigrants allowed to become American citizens stay the same? (84% -- 41)

7) Do you think illegal aliens, if they were to become citizens of the United States, should get credit for money they paid in the Social Security system while they were here illegally?

A) Yes, they should get credit. (22% -- 11)
B) No, they should not. (78% -- 40)

8) Which of the following would you prefer?

A) A guest worker program. (43% -- 22)
B) No guest worker program. (57% -- 29)

9) If we were to have a guest worker program, do you think that:

A) Illegal Immigrants currently in the US should be able to participate. (29% -- 14)
B) Illegal Immigrants currently in the US should not be able to participate. (71% -- 35)

10) One of the features of the plan offered by Congressman Mike Pence would be that an unlimited number of guest workers would be allowed to enter the United States for three years. If we were to have a guest worker program, do you believe:

A) There should be no set limit on the number of guest workers allowed to enter the United States in the first three years. (14% -- 7)

B) There should be a set limit on the number of guest workers allowed to enter the United States in the first three years. (86% -- 44)

11) Would you support a proposal to ban immigrants caught in the United States illegally or trying to enter the United States illegally from ever becoming citizens of the US or being part of a guest worker program?

A) No (34% -- 17)
B) Yes (66% -- 33)

12) Currently, babies born to illegal immigrants in the United States automatically become US citizens. Would you prefer to see that practice stopped or continued?

A) I'd prefer to see babies born to illegal immigrants in the US automatically become American citizens. (12% -- 6)

B) I'd prefer that babies born to illegal immigrants in the US not be given automatic citizenship. (88% -- 43)

13) Do you think English should be the official language of the United States?

A) No (6% -- 3)
B) Yes (94% -- 47)

14) Do you believe that the Government should be required to provide ballots for elections in languages other than English or would English only be acceptable?

A) The government should be required to provide ballots in languages other than English. (8% -- 4)

B) English only ballots would be acceptable. (92% -- 46)

This is a little scary:

"A SIGNIFICANT minority of British Muslims believe they are at war with the rest of society, the largest poll of Muslims in this country suggests.

The Populus survey for The Times and ITV News has found that more than one in ten thinks that the men who carried out the London bombings of 7/7 should be regarded as “martyrs”. Sixteen per cent of British Muslims, equivalent to more than 150,000 adults, believe that while the attacks were wrong, the cause was right.

...13% of British Muslims think that the four men who carried out the London Tube and bus bombings of July 7, 2005, should be regarded as “martyrs”

7% agree that suicide attacks on civilians in the UK can be justified in some circumstances, rising to 16 per cent for a military target

16% of British Muslims say that while the attacks may have been wrong, the cause was right

2% would be proud if a family member decided to join al-Qaeda. Sixteen per cent would be “indifferent”

So, roughly 17,500 Muslims in Britain would be "proud" if a family member joined Al-Qaeda and another 150,000 or so wouldn't be concerned about it? Meanwhile, it took just 19 terrorists to pull off 9/11. Would the poll numbers among American Muslims look much different? Doubt it and that's not encouraging news...

Hat tip to Power Line via Tammy Bruce for the graphic.

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 June...

8) Snow Patrol: Run
8) Seether: Out of My Way
8) Dope: Die MF Die
8) Cypress Hill: Insane in the Brain
8) Cypress Hill: Cock the Hammer
6) John Cena and the Trademarc: Bad, Bad Man
6) House of Pain: Jump Around
3) Toby Keith: Courtesy Of The Red White And Blue
3) Insane Clown Posse: Hokus Pokus
3) DMX: Bring Your Whole Crew
2) David Gray: Please Forgive Me
1) Lonestar: Amazed

Foreign

North Korea Fired Taepodong Missile Which Failed

Israeli Aircraft Attack Hamas Camp In Gaza Strip

Olmert Issues Veiled Threat Against Syria

Terrorists Cave In On Israeli Hostage Ultimatum

Israel Warns Of "Long War" Over Soldier

Leftist Demands Full Recount in Mexico

Iraq Considers Arming Insurgents (Very Dumb Idea)

Domestic

House Gop Leaders Say Vote On Minimum Wage Now Likely (Vote It Down You Wimps)

Bush Signaling Shift in Stance on Immigration (Free New York Times Reg Req)

Rumsfeld Subpoenaed By Congressional Committee Over Abu Ghraib

Lieberman Fights For His Political Life

Hillary Clinton Draws Line on Backing Lieberman

Columns

John Stossel: A Convenient Lie

Robert Samuelson: Global Warming's Real Inconvenient Truth

Peter Brookes: A World Without America

A Chat With Ann Coulter

Jeff Jacoby: About Our 'Dictator'

Left-Overs

Anti-War Protesters Begin July 4 Fast

Left’s Bloggers Try To Play Kingmaker In Lower Races

Brain Rewired Itself In Coma Miracle. New Study Of Man Who Spent 19 Years In 'Vegetative State'

Website Of The Day: Townhall

A Message From The Citizens Of The 'Great Satan' To The Rest Of The World

America, Superman, Liberia, & Magic Buttons

Anti-Americanism Is Nothing New

Envy & Anti-Americanism

Great Patriotic Quotes

Humor: The Guide to Anti-Americanism

Patrick Henry & The Bookbag Massacre!

Patriotism Litmus Test. America vs. the U.N

Quotes from Reagan on America, Freedom, and War

Quotes From The American Revolution

Quotes Of Note From Every US President

Thank Goodness For The Americans

The Case For George Washington As The Greatest American

The 100 Greatest Americans Of All-Time According To RWN

The Left, The Flag, & Patriotism

The US Is Obviously The Most Benevolent World Power In The History Of The Planet

Time to Recapture Our Destiny by Ronald Reagan

Try And Stop Us

War And Battle: The Quotations

What's So Great About America?

First of all, thanks to all the guest bloggers for doing such a great job yesterday. They were:

Betsy Newmark from Betsy's Page.

Sister Toldjah.

Lorie Byrd from LorieByrd, Wizbang!, & Wizbang Politics.

Patrick Hynes from Ankle Biting Pundits & The Channel Changer. Patrick is also the author of, In Defense of the Religious Right: Why Conservative Christians Are the Lifeblood of the Republican Party and Why That Terrifies the Democrats.

Cassandra from Villainous Company.

Again, much thanks for filling in!

Tomorrow, RWN will return to a normal schedule. Make sure to tune in to check it out, if only to see the results of a right side of the blogosphere wide poll on illegal immigration.

Until then, consider this to be an open thread and have a great 4th of July!

Every once in a while a news article comes along that contains a liberal bias in it so subtle that you'd miss it if you weren't reading it carefully. Today's example comes from Charles J. Hanley, writing for the Associated Press. See if you can spot the liberal media bias below:

Some Republican lawmakers called for criminal investigations of the journalists responsible and of the government insiders who leaked the information.

Investigations are already under way in other U.S. cases, reaching back to 2003, when whistleblower Joseph Wilson questioned a Bush administration claim about Iraq's supposed nuclear program. Times reporter Judith Miller spent three months in jail in that complex case last year, as investigators sought whoever leaked the name of Wilson's CIA-agent wife.

The term 'leak' as it relates to revealing previously unknown sensitive information to the public denotes 'wrongness' - the article correctly points out that the administration is on a mission to find out who leaked sensitive information about the Swift program to the press.

On the other hand, the term 'whistleblower' is used to describe someone who alerts the public to wrongdoing that has been kept under the rug. Dictionary.com's definition:

One who reveals wrongdoing within an organization to the public or to those in positions of authority ...

With that in mind, let's go back to the paragraph I quoted earlier, with emphasis added by me:

Investigations are already under way in other U.S. cases, reaching back to 2003, when whistleblower Joseph Wilson questioned a Bush administration claim about Iraq's supposed nuclear program. Times reporter Judith Miller spent three months in jail in that complex case last year, as investigators sought whoever leaked the name of Wilson's CIA-agent wife.

The article describes Joe Wilson as a "whistleblower" (aka revealer of wrongdoing) while on the other hand, the person(s) who mentioned his wife's name to a reporter (or reporters) is a 'leaker' (meaning it was 'wrong').

Joe Wilson, as we all know, was and is not a "whistleblower." He was/is an administration critic and Democratic party hack who was discredited by a bipartisan Senate intelligence panel in 2004. As far as the 'leak' of his wife's name, it has never been proven that whoever discussed Valerie Plame with reporters did so knowing they were supposedly 'outing' her.

Once again we have an example of the press deciding who was in the right and who was in the wrong by using the terms 'leaker' and 'whistleblower.' And they do it so subtly that you can miss it if you're not looking for it.

Toldjah so.

Hat tip: Christopher Alleva at The American Thinker

Thanks once again to John for inviting me to guest blog here at RWN. If you enjoyed this post, you can read more of my work by visiting my blog, which I linked to above in this cross-post. Have a safe and fun Independence Day!

The values-don’t-matter caucus of politicians and pundits had better hope it is right that conservative Christian appeals to social issue voters have and will continue to fall on deaf ears. They have staked a great deal of their political fortunes and personal reputations on this dubious contention.

Only a couple weeks after the U.S. Senate failed to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee failed to obtain a simply majority on a measure to protect the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance from activist judges. The measure would ordinarily have breezed through the committee, but seven Republican members failed to show up to vote.

I believe this blasé attitude toward social—or, if you prefer, moral values--issues stems from an blind refusal to recognize the role values played in the GOP’s extraordinary landslide victory in 2004.

Respected conservative pundits Charles Krauthammer and David Brooks argued shortly after that election that the impact of moral values voters was a “myth.” Krauthammer wrote at the time:

If you pit group against group, the moral values class comes in dead last: war issues at 34 percent, economic issues variously described at 33 percent and moral values at 22 percent -- i.e., they are at least a third less salient than the others.

Brooks sounded a similar theme:

This year, the official story is that throngs of homophobic, Red America values-voters surged to the polls to put George Bush over the top.

This theory certainly flatters liberals, and it is certainly wrong.

As I have noted elsewhere, Krauthammer was ambivalent about gay marriage in 2004 and opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment. Brooks supports gay marriage openly. So it would appear that their analyses flatter their own worldviews.

George Will, who is so clever about so much of our public sphere, feigns confusion when the word values creeps into the discussion:

An aggressively annoying new phrase in America's political lexicon is "values voters." It is used proudly by social conservatives, and carelessly by the media to denote such conservatives.

This phrase diminishes our understanding of politics. It also is arrogant on the part of social conservatives and insulting to everyone else because it implies that only social conservatives vote to advance their values and everyone else votes to . . . well, it is unclear what they supposedly think they are doing with their ballots.

Republicans acted in accordance with this prevailing attitude upon assembling the 109th Congress in January, 2005. Instead of voting on moral values controversies, the GOP agenda turned to privatizing Social Security and tackling illegal immigration; two issues that were nearly vacant from the political debate in 2004.

Neither of these issues, however, has helped Republicans. Social Security reform fell flat and disappeared from the national scene in less than a year. Immigration reform has split the GOP utterly. So with their backs against the wall and their names on the ballot again in just four months, Republican leaders in Congress have turned to their old reliable base: those “mythical” values voters.

But after perhaps having breathed so much of that “myth” exhaust, Congress can’t even pander with a whole heart. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist failed to generate enough support for the Federal Marriage Amendment despite the fact that on Election Day 2004, the 20 million Americans who voted on statewide gay marriage ballot initiatives chose to ban the practice by a combined margin of 2-to1. Frist also failed to drum up enough support to ban flag burning. Would these measures have failed so miserably if Frist had brought them up immediately after the 2004 election? I doubt it.

It is difficult not to look at the House Republican’s “American Values Agenda” with similar skepticism. Remember the Pledge Protection Act died in committee because of GOP apathy, not because “under God” has no public support. And what about the timing of this agenda? Twenty months after the last election but only four months before the next? Puh-lease.

Make no mistake. Traditional moral values enjoy tremendous popularity and support in America. Eighty-four percent of Americans reject the idea of removing “under God” from our Pledge of Allegiance. According to the Pew Research Center, “64 percent [of Americans] support teaching creationism along with evolution in the public schools, while only 29 percent oppose the idea.” A recent Gallup poll shows that 56 percent of Americans favor a constitutional ban on flag burning. And on and on.

Anti-values pundits and politicians fall back on the reassuring fallacy that while these values issues are popular with the public, no one really cares about them with any meaningful intensity. And yet a very real attack against these values is coming from the radical left and its judicial enablers; an attack that truly needs defending against, not merely exploiting for votes. Someday, this attack will dawn on Republican members of Congress and they will set about doing something serious to combat it.

Patrick Hynes is the author of In Defense of the Religious Right and the proprietor of Ankle Biting Pundits.

The AP reports:

On Monday, an Iraqi legislator said authorities found telephone numbers of senior officials in al-Zarqawi's cell phone after his death. Waiel Abdul-Latif, a member of former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's party, did not give names of the officials. But he said they included ministry employees and members of parliament.

He called for an investigation, saying Iraqis "cannot have one hand with the government and another with the terrorists."

Now how could a guy like Zarqawi have had such information, if he were nothing more than a 'figurehead' and 'Bush creation' as the moonbat wing of the Democratic party have asserted ...?

The same AP story reports other news, but misleads with the headline:

al-Qaida Leaders Sold al-Zarqawi to U.S.

Now if somene is scanning headlines at Yahoo News, or Google News, let's hope they examine the story beyond the headline to get fully informed, because it's not been confirmed (nor will it be) that AQ leaders sold out the 'figurehead' to the US. It's the claim of Zarq's first wife:

Al-Qaida leaders sold out Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to the United States in exchange for a promise to let up in the search for Osama bin Laden, the slain militant's wife claimed in an interview with an Italian newspaper.

The woman, identified by La Repubblica as al-Zarqawi's first wife, said al-Qaida's top leadership reached a deal with U.S. intelligence because al-Zarqawi had become too powerful. She claimed Sunni tribes and Jordanian secret services mediated the deal.

Al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, died June 7 in a U.S. airstrike outside Baqouba, northeast of Baghdad.

"My husband has been sold to the Americans," the woman said in an interview published Sunday. "He had become too powerful, too troublesome."

She was identified only as "Um Mohammed," which means "mother of Mohammed" and would be a nickname, not her full name. The Rome-based newspaper said the interview was conducted in Geneva and described her as Jordanian and about 40 years old.

In Jordan, Al-Zarqawi's eldest brother, Sayel, said the family had not been aware of the woman's whereabouts for about two years.

"I think a secret pact was struck whose immediate goal was his death," she told the newspaper. "In return, the American troops promised to ease, at least momentarily, their hunt for bin Laden."

Why was this woman, whose name has not been divulged (thus making her - for all intents and purposes - an anonymous source), given any credibility with the Associated Press via their publishing quotes from her interview with La Repubblica? Probably the same reason the AP gave credibility to an anonymous source (to be sure, he was identified as "Mohammed", but that's like a reporter quoting someone here in the US named "Joe") who, shortly after Zarqawi's demise, tried to claim that US soldiers beat Zarqawi to death. Anything to detract away from a victory for not only the US military but more importantly to the left, Bush. First it was "they beat him to death!!! US soldiers are animals!" and now it's "US troops promised to 'let up' on the hunt for OBL if AQ leaders led them to Zarqawi's (un)safe house!!!"

It never ends.

Thanks to John for inviting me to guest blog here along with a stellar cast of conservative bloggers. I'm honored to be amongst such blogospheric excellence :) If you enjoyed this post, you can read more of my work by visiting my blog Sister Toldjah.

The unfolding train wreck at the New York Times continues. Executive Editor Bill Keller has demonstrated a truly impressive mastery of the flexible urban viewpoint for which the Times is justly renowned. He argues, at various times, that we should not allow governments to keep secrets, that the decision was "agonizing", that our friends in the international community (folks like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - if only the Times had gotten a tip on that impending airstrike!) - can only benefit when we allow greater transparency in our secret anti-terror programs.

But nowhere in all this talk of openness and transparency did Mr. Keller find time to mention that the publication of classified information is against the law. And make no mistake: revealing our national secrets is illegal. There is no press exemption. So it would seem there are limits to the public's right to know, and the knowledge that the Times has repeatedly broken the law is a detail that in Bill Keller's lofty editorial judgment, we need not be burdened with.

In retrospect, we can sympathize with The Times. With so many contradictory positions to reconcile, life must get extremely confusing. For instance, it would seem transparency is not an unalloyed good. He's all in favor of transparency for government, but not so keen on openness when it comes to how the Times does business. Fair enough. And even the government, when it suits the media, is allowed to keep some secrets. In the Times' estimation, the outing of a single "covert" agent is a dangerous national security breach requiring a special prosecutor; even when the charging statute is one the Times itself held to be unconstitutional when it was passed. The outing of entire classified anti-terror programs, on the other hand, is not only safe, but serves the public good!

"How can this be?", you may be asking yourself. The answer is simple. Bill Keller is a Very Smart Man - so smart that he can be trusted to make major national security decisions without any oversight. He has formulated the Theory of the Unitary Editor, which goes something like this. On the first day of the Constitutional Convention, the Founding Fathers created the New York Times. And they looked upon their creation, and they saw that it was good. And they clearly intended for it to have a tremendous amount of power for, as our Democrat brethren-in-Christ are always reminding us, Thomas Jefferson said it would be better to have a press and no government, didn't he? So the second day the Framers, via the First Amendment, explicitly created a Fourth Branch of government which operates completely independently of the other three branches. Furthermore, unlike the other three branches, this fourth branch was to be able to violate laws passed by our elected representatives at any time with impunity, since the First Amendment would operate as a virtual trump or "get out of jail free" card. Now this may alarm some of you somewhat, but you should not worry. We the Little People should simply trust that the Times would never abuse this tremendous power, because although the press are not subject to any external oversight or checks and balances, the Founders did provide for an entirely sufficient internal oversight system in the form of Executive Editors. This is where the Theory of the Unitary Editor comes in.

According to the Theory of the Unitary Editor, whenever a Times reporter is given unauthorized classified information, Bill Keller's editorial conscience allows him to unilaterally declassify national secrets, bypass Congress, and violate the law in the interest of keeping the nation safe from a popularly elected President who he fears may be bypassing Congress and breaking the law.

And the best news of all is that even though the justification for releasing classified information in the first place was that the government was being excessively secretive, it now turns out that the program wasn't even a secret!

Eric Lichtblau today, on CNN’s Reliable Sources:

“USA Today”, the biggest circulation in the country, the lead story on their front page four days before our story ran was the terrorists know their money is being traced, and they are moving it into—outside of the banking system into unconventional means. It is by no means a secret.

Long-time Times readers must be so relieved, if a bit puzzled. If the information wasn't secret, what on earth was poor Mr. Keller so agonized about?

And the reaction of Congress does seem to be a bit of a head-scratcher. If this was common knowledge, whence all the screeching? Was the government being secretive or not? If it wasn't, why maliciously draw unneeded attention to a program that was catching terrorists and those who fund them?

And finally, if this information was in the public domain why didn't the Times source its story from publicly available sources, and thus make itself immune to criticism?

Undoubtedly in the interest of openness and transparency, Mr. Keller will be forthcoming with the answers in no time. After all, the public has a right to know.

Charles Lane at the Washington Post, David G. Savage at the Los Angeles Times, and Dahlia Lithwick at Slate all wrote basically the same article this weekend. Analyzing the decisions that were decided by a five-justice majority, it is clear that Anthony Kennedy is the swing vote. Some days he swings to the right as he did earlier in the week when he upheld the Texas redistricting. Other days he swings to the left as he did in the Hamdan case voting to say that the President needed to ask Congress to set up the tribunals to hear the case of Osama's driver. The trend is clear that Kennedy is the justice most likely to make a majority.

In the 17 cases during the 2005-2006 term that were decided by five-vote majorities, Kennedy was on the winning side 12 times, more than any other justice, according to figures compiled by the Supreme Court Institute.

In six of those cases, Kennedy voted with the conservative bloc, made up of Roberts, Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. As a result, the court upheld most of Texas's Republican-drafted redistricting plan, restored the death penalty in Kansas, and ruled that police do not have to throw out evidence they gather in illegal no-knock searches.

But four times, Kennedy, a 1988 appointee of President Ronald Reagan, defected to the liberal justices, John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

As a result, the court not only struck down Bush's military commissions, but also ruled that the police need permission from both occupants to search a home without a warrant, gave a Tennessee death row inmate a chance to win a new trial, and said that Texas violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the voting power of Latino Democrats in one district. (Twice Kennedy was part of mixed left-right coalitions.)

With Sandra Day O'Connor gone, Kennedy is all alone as the belle (beau?) of the ball. Everyone wants to dance with him, because if it's going to be a tight vote, he most likely is going to be the one deciding which side wins and what the law of the land will be. And he seems to be reveling in his power.

But more crucially, Kennedy has appropriated O'Connor's trick of writing either an opinion or a concurrence that goes on to become the law of the land. O'Connor was famous (and not always in a good way) for signing on to an opinion, but on narrower grounds than the other four justices in the majority. The trick is that the justice who decides the case most narrowly then speaks for the whole court. And that's how O'Connor imprinted her views on an awful lot of jurisprudence.

But unlike O'Connor, who invariably pooh-poohed her pivotal role on the court (always claiming that she had only one vote, like every other justice), Kennedy is said to relish it. In his controversial book Closed Chambers, Edward Lazarus, a former clerk for Harry Blackmun, claimed that Kennedy actively seeks out these pivotal positions on the court, deliberately staking out positions that would make him a "necessary but distinctive fifth vote for a majority."

Dahlia Lithwick claims that you can tell that lawyers are writing briefs especially crafted to appeal to Kennedy as are other justices in their opinions. Quoting Kennedy's own opinions back to him is a special plus.

Doesn't this strike you as somehow not quite right? Should crucial decisions in our nation come down time after time to just one unelected man, and a man who seems to have no framework for his decisions but is just making it up as he goes along? Did the Framers of the Constitution who envisioned the Judiciary as the "least dangerous" branch really have in mind that it would all come down to one man? It's bad enough that the whole economy seems to pause in anxious anticipation to figure out what Ben Bernanke is up to. Now we have to wonder what is going on in the head of Anthony Kennedy.

The only solution is to hope that over the years, we can get people on the Court who are more in line with Justice Roberts' characterization of the Court's role as being a modest umpire. Until that time, we're all going to have to try and figure out what makes Anthony Kennedy happy.

(Thank you to John Hawkins for inviting me to guestblog along with all these great bloggers. This post is cross posted at my personal blog at Betsy's Page.)

It seems fitting that so many news stories leading up to the 4th of July involve issues of patriotism. The question of whether or not newspapers should have published classified national security information raises the question, among others, of whether the American media should be patriotic and choose sides. For many years, this was not even a question. Recently, however, it has been the subject of much debate. Following 9/11 there was even controversy over some news anchors who chose to wear American flag pins on their lapels.

Many on the left have cited patriotism as the basis for their questioning of the war and of the administration. Most recently Richard Stengel, Managing Editor of Time invoked patriotism:

The line between dissent and disloyalty, between harmful revelations and vital ones, is murky. Often we never really know. But I would argue that the judicious questioning of the conduct and morality of war is the furthest thing from disloyalty: it is an expression of deep patriotism and the essence of responsible citizenship.

While some on the left are embracing patriotism in an attempt to explain their actions, others recoil at the very notion of patriotic expression. According to recent entries, some at Daily Kos don't want to appear patriotic, lest their patriotism be interpreted as support for a president they hate. It goes beyond the President himself for many though, and extends to the military and American society in general. As one Kos diarist put it, "How could I in good conscience stand to embrace the lyrics "I'm proud to be an American" in the very same week we learned U.S. soldiers raped an Iraqi woman then murdered her and her family to cover up the crime?"

When it comes to patriotism, I guess it is easier being conservative. As best I can tell, patriotism is pretty straight forward and uncomplicated for most of us on the right. It is for me, anyway. Maybe I am just not nuanced enough to have a problem with patriotism. I have enough sense to know that even if a few soldiers are found to be guilty of horrible crimes, they do not represent the vast majority of the very wonderful men and women wearing the uniform of this country. It is important that we thank those doing such a great job and let them know we appreciate it. I also recognize that even though this country is not perfect, it is far superior to any other. That fence so many people want built is certainly not intended to keep people inside the country.

For those on the left worried that if they wave a flag tomorrow they might be thought to be supporting the President of the United States, or the U.S. military, or American capitalism, relax. Fly the flag, sing some patriotic songs, shoot off some fireworks, eat some hot dogs. I did when Bill Clinton was President and no one that I know got the impression that I was endorsing him. One thing it seems most everyone, right and left, can agree on is the beauty of the U.S. Constitution and appreciation for the freedoms we are so blessed to experience. I encourage everyone on the right and left alike to celebrate what you find great about this country.

Thanks to John Hawkins for allowing me to guest blog here along with so many of my favorite bloggers. Please visit Wizbang (where this is cross-posted) and Wizbang Politics for great political news and commentary.

Since Tuesday of next week is the 4th of July, I'm going to be vacationing on Monday and Tuesday. But, RWN will still be updated.

On Monday, there will be guest bloggers and on Tuesday, Retro RWN posts will be up. The guest bloggers for RWN on Monday are:

Betsy Newmark from Betsy's Page.

Sister Toldjah.

Lorie Byrd from LorieByrd, Wizbang!, & Wizbang Politics.

Patrick Hynes from Ankle Biting Pundits & The Channel Changer. Patrick is also the author of, In Defense of the Religious Right: Why Conservative Christians Are the Lifeblood of the Republican Party and Why That Terrifies the Democrats.

Bryan Preston from Hot Air & JunkYardBlog.

Cassandra from Villainous Company.

Have a great week-end, enjoy the links below, consider this to be an open thread, and make sure to tune in Monday to read what the guest bloggers have to say.

John Hawkins Vs. Jerome Corsi

Al-Zarqawis Mom's Blog

Backcountry Conservative

Cool Facts About John Bolton's Mustache

Cox & Forkum

Dinocrat

Fark Thread: Britney Spears Bears It All While Pregnant For Bazaar Magazine. (Lots Of Offensive Lanaguage, But Some Great Photoshops In This)

Jacko Broke-O King Of Flop Owed 'Hundreds Of Millions'

Is Janeane Garofalo Out At Air America?

Israel Last Night Threatened To Assassinate Palestinian Prime Minister Ismael Haniyeh If Hamas Militants Did Not Release A Captured Israeli Soldier Unharmed (Applause)

Maggie's Farm

New Superman Movie Tries To Disassociate Itself From America: "Truth, Justice And The American Way" Changed To "Truth, Justice And All That Stuff."

The People's Cube

Polipundit

There Is A Concerted, Organized Effort To Dig Up And Publicize The Private Home Information Of Prominent Conservatives In The Media And Blogosphere To Intimidate Them.

Vernon Robinson's Twilight Zone Ad. (Wow)