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

A Call To Action: Taking Down Liberal Republican Joe Schwarz Is Critical!

Abusing Kids For "Art"

Annavenger

ChicagoRay

Dr. Melissa Clouthier

Israel Matzav

Right Truth

Yoni The Blogger

Seattle: Man Shoots 6, 1 Fatally At Seattle Jewish Center. "I Am A Muslim American, Angry At Israel."

Game: Storm The House 2

Tammy Bruce

The Daily Gut

Right Wing News is looking for another moderator. So, if you're interested in helping keep the comments sections clean -- at no pay, of course =D -- please let me know in the comments section.

As you may have heard, Cindy Sheehan has bought property in Crawford, Texas with Casey Sheehan's insurance money, and some details about that purchase have come to light. So, let's take a moment and see how "The Rosa Parks of the Anti-War movement," Cindy Sheehan, treats people when the cameras aren't rolling.

First of all, Cindy Sheehan had to buy a piece of land because she had a fall-out with the man who had let Cindy and her band of malcontents set up "Camp Crawford" last year.

Sheehan and Mark Mattlage, owner of the 1-acre property where protesters have been allowed to gather, have had a falling out over scheduling and increased costs for liability insurance.

....Mattlage, who no longer lives near Crawford, said he is a registered Democrat but has not opposed Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq. He said he did not lend his land to the protesters for political reasons. Instead, Mattlage said, he was worried that someone would get hurt if anti-war advocates continued to assemble just off Prairie Chapel Road, leading up to the president's ranch.

....He said he did not charge for the use of the land but did require the protest group to reimburse him for the cost of liability insurance, initially amounting to between $700 and $800. For subsequent gatherings, including Thanksgiving and then Easter, Crawford Peace House paid to put in electrical and water lines.

Mattlage said he had no idea so many Sheehan supporters would gather on his property, and he acknowledged some of what the protesters said about Bush and the U.S. in the war made him cringe.

...Despite some misgivings, the business relationship between Sheehan and Mattlage was friendly and, at times, jokingly flirtatious, according to an exchange of e-mails between the two, provided to the Star-Telegram by Mattlage.

The relationship began to sour somewhat, he said, when he recently learned on the group's Web site that protesters planned to return to Crawford in August. He said he did not agree to let them use the land at that time because it coincided with his family's plans to hunt doves. He said he also did not want Sheehan to use his property when Bush was at his ranch. "I just didn't want his vacation to be interrupted. It was out of respect for the president," Mattlage said.

He said he eventually agreed to let Gold Star Families for Peace use his land in August but only with the understanding that, because of the expected huge crowds, liability insurance costs were going to increase significantly to between $5,500 and $6,000. Mattlage said that, on the advice of his lawyer, he also told the protest group to sign a "hold harmless" agreement that would further free him of liability if something went wrong.

In a newsletter e-mailed to Mattlage and protest organizers on June 23, Sheehan told Mattlage, "I cannot in good faith accept the terms that you and your lawyers are holding us hostage with. ... I fear we will have to find alternatives to using your land ... "

Mattlage, in a phone interview, said Sheehan had initially agreed to pay the higher insurance costs. It made him mad, he said, when she later sent an e-mail to organizers suggesting he was holding her "hostage."

Mattlage sent his one-time friend an e-mail back that said, "You can go away now."

And Sheehan replied: "Okay. Bye."

Once Sheehan couldn't use Mattlage any more, that was the end of their friendship. Then, he was just another jerk holding them "hostage." So, after Sheehan turned Mattlage into a "former friend," she still needed land for her traveling freakshow to use. That's when the lying started:

"Longtime Crawford resident Bobby D. Ramsey sold a little more than five acres to Gerald T. Fonseca, a New Orleans native who said he was displaced by Hurricane Katrina last fall. Fonseca was in Crawford along with hundreds of other war protesters when the hurricane destroyed his home Aug. 29.

Fonseca, who identifies himself as a Vietnam veteran and a member of Veterans for Peace, had been living more recently in Eagle Rock, Mo., with relatives. He has been in Crawford the past four weeks, staying at the Crawford Peace House.

While Fonseca’s name is on the deed as the land’s new owner, Sheehan’s protest group will use the property for this year’s Camp Casey, the peace camp named for Sheehan’s son, Casey Sheehan, a 24-year-old Fort Hood soldier killed in Iraq in 2004.

In September, Fonseca said, ownership of the land will be transferred to Sheehan.

Ramsey, who soon may find unexpected neighbors when protesters move into a huge tent on the property he sold, said he was unaware before the sale that it would be used by Sheehan to host Camp Casey in August.

“(Fonseca) said he was going to build a home and, one day, a shop (on the land),” Ramsey said Thursday, speaking from his adjacent property in Crawford. “He told me that Katrina wiped him out.. . . . It didn’t even occur to me that he could use it for this.”

Fonseca confirmed he never indicated to his new neighbors that the land would be transferred to Sheehan, but he said that was always the plan. He said the $52,500 used to pay for the property — a spread of rustic, wooded prairie with no houses — came from Sheehan and her Gold Star Families for Peace.

Fonseca said he acted as “an agent” for Sheehan, negotiating the purchase and closing the deal with Ramsey."

Can you imagine being tricked into allowing Cindy Sheehan and her gang-of-idiots to move in on an, "adjacent property?" What a nightmare! And Sheehan and Company aren't even bothering to cover up the fact that they lied through their teeth to get this guy to sell them their property.

To tell you the truth, this sort of behavior isn't really surprising coming from a "professional griever" who used her son's death as a stepping stone to fame and fortune. I mean, we're talking about a woman who bought herself a new car before she bought a headstone for her son's grave, so there shouldn't have been a lot of doubts about her character before. But, just in case there were, this sort of open and shameless lying on behalf of Sheehan by her "agent" should remove them.

Could you help me out by clicking on just a few ads? Please?

Link #1

Link #2

Link #3

Link #4

Link #5

Link #6

Link #7

Link #8

These comments from Mike Castle about a minimum wage hike give you a lot of insight into what's wrong with the GOP's thinking in a nutshell:

"Whether people like it or not, we need to go ahead with it," said Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del., who supports the idea. "There's a general agreement among Republicans (opposing the raise) that "maybe we don't like it much, but we need to move forward with it just for political reasons."

So the GOP is going to vote for a policy that they don't support, that their base doesn't support, that they don't believe is good for America, for political reasons, despite the fact that there is great hue and cry for raising the minimum wage.

This is exactly the sort of thing that frustrates the base and convinces the American people that we have a bunch of spineless jellyfish up on Capitol Hill who don't stand for anything except getting reelected.

Sure, there may be times when a politician has to give in on an issue because of political necessity, but we've gotten to the point where the GOP caves on so many minimally important issues that we're pushing through more of the Democratic agenda, than the Republican agenda, in a lot of areas.

You know what the most ironic thing is about that sort of attitude? If the Republicans in Washington spent less time trying to protect their cushy jobs and spent more time pleasing Republicans by doing the right thing for the country, the base would be highly motivated right now. That means instead of losing seats in November, the GOP would be expanding its majority. It's exactly this kind of "Castle Mentality" that's killing the GOP politically right now.

"Now comes Oxfam’s latest report on the causes of hunger, in which the group calls for a rethinking of how to deal with the poor and the hungry in Africa. The report highlights something of an open secret in international circles: that the past 50 years of food aid have actually, in many cases, made matters worse.

How is that possible? Most international food aid is given in the form of imported food, which has to be shipped from far away and takes up to five months to reach its intended beneficiaries. (The real beneficiaries are the farmers in Europe and North America who are able to get rid of their surplus produce.)

One way food aid makes matters worse is by immediately depressing the price of any food that’s produced locally. (Who can compete with free food?) And therefore putting any local farmers who have managed to weather the current famine or conflict or other crisis out of business or relegating them entirely to subsistence farming for their own needs." -- The Time Global Health Blog

Hat tip to Iowa Voice for the excerpt.

"After German SS troops massacred 86 American soldiers at Malmedy in Belgium on Dec. 17, 1944, some units like the U.S. 11th Armored Division took revenge on captured German soldiers. In the Pacific, relatively few Japanese prisoners were taken in the brutal island fights. But the folks back home never heard about those things or what techniques were used to interrogate prisoners who might know where the next ambush would be. The American military did what they had to do in order to win. As General Patton once said to his army: "I do not advocate standing Germans up against the wall and shooting them — so shoot the sons of b——— before you get them to the wall. George Patton would not be allowed to serve in combat today. The New York Times would make sure of that. The International Red Cross would be all over Patton and his aggressive Third Army. Dick Durbin would be appalled. But it is Patton that we need right now to defeat the barbarians who would kill all of us in the name of Allah." -- An oldie, but a goodie that I just ran across from Bill O'Reilly

4) Fund Raising: The GOP has an important edge in cash going into the elections. So far, we've spent $103 million more than Democrats and yet, we still have 24 million more on hand.

3) Democrats Want To Cut And Run In Iraq: Even at the height of the Vietnam War's unpopularity, the American people voted in droves for Richard Nixon over peacenik George McGovern. Americans hate losing wars and as a whole, we don't much care for people who want us to give in to our enemies as the Democrats do in Iraq. Add to that the Democrats' stands on Gitmo, wiretapping, the Patriot Act, etc., and Americans just can't trust Democrats with our defense.

2) Too Many Crazies: Because liberals are much more reluctant to criticize their own than Republicans, they end up embracing a lot more embarrassing characters than the GOP does. Every time they make another gaffe, a few more people end up voting Republican.

1) The Idea Fogbank: Because the Democrats have so many interest groups they can't afford to offend and because they hold so many unpopular ideas near and dear to their hearts, they can't be open about their agenda. This keeps the Dems from being able to clearly tell the American people what they stand for and often leads people to suspect, with good reason, that they're not being honest about what they want to do once they get into power.

Update #1: On the Nixon/McGovern comparison, Nixon ran on creating "Peace with Honor," while McGovern's platform was essentially, "Run For Your Lives!" The American people chose Nixon in a landslide -- and with good reason.

Nixon made good on his promise, but after Watergate, the Democrats in Congress were strengthened enough to be able to cut off the supplies and air support we promised to South Vietnam, which for all intents and purposes delivered the country to the Commies wrapped in a big red bow. Were it not for the actions of the Democrats in Congress, South Vietnam would likely be a free country today and the war would be a viewed as an American victory, albeit a costly one.

In the here and now, many of the Democrats in Congress would be completely content to see Iraq taken over by terrorists because they think they'd benefit from it politically. That's because, at least from 1972 election on, the Democrats have put petty political concerns above National Security. The went soft on Vietnam (Richard Nixon was cleaning up Johnson's mess), they were soft on the Soviets, and it's no surprise that they've been so soft on terrorism. It's just what they do.

4) George Bush: He's been damaged, fairly or unfairly by Katrina, his handling of the Dubai Ports Deal, and his refusal to fight back strongly against the Democratic attacks on him. Also, he's a "big government" Republican who holds a position on illegal immigration that's anathema to most of his base. All these factors have combined to drive his approval rating down into the thirties, in most polls, and have made him unpopular.

3) The War in Iraq: Although the American people want to win in Iraq, they're war weary and dissatisfied with the progress they've seen so far. Fortunately, the Democrats have been so hapless and irresponsible that the public trusts them less than the GOP. But, Americans want to see improvement here.

2) Spending: The base is full of Reagan Republicans who believe that the GOP should be cutting spending and shrinking the size of the government. Most Republicans in the Senate and the White House don't seem to share that view.

1) Illegal immigration: The President and a large group of Republicans have teamed up to push a Senate bill that is strongly opposed by the GOP base and much of the country. Although the Democrats hold this same position in even greater numbers, percentage wise, it's less demoralizing to their base.

Update #1: If there was a number 5, it would have been high gas prices. In my opinion, they have a lot to do with why Bush isn't getting credit for the fantastic economy and they lead to a lot of general discontent with the government, although there isn't a lot the government can do in the short term to really cut them down.

What good are peacekeepers if...

-- They refuse to stop Hezbollah from attacking Israel?
-- They are there only with Hezbollah's permission?
-- Their positions are being used as "shields" by Hezbollah?
-- They don't even have guns?

The peacekeepers in Lebanon have been useless. So, what good would it do to send more peacekeepers over? Unless the peacekeepers were willing to actually fight Hamas to keep them from attacking -- and they're not -- what good would they be? None whatsoever...

Update #1: So, what's the answer? It's killing people and breaking things in Iran and Syria. They're the people pulling Hezbollah's strings and they might be willing to fight right down to the last person in Lebanon, but they don't want Israel blowing up things in their countries. Ripping Hezbollah up is good. Bloodying Iran and/or Syria is better.

Foreign

Israeli Security Cabinet Decides Against Expanding Lebanon Operation: "At The Moment The Army Is Not Bound By Time, It Can Act As Long As Needed."

1,402 Rockets Shot At Israel Since Onset Of Fighting

Hezbollah Was Using UN Post As 'Shield'

IAF Knocks Out Hezbollah Missile Command In Tyre

Bush Cites Iran's Role in Lebanon Conflict

Al-Zawahri Calls For Holy War On Israel

Hezbollah leader said to be hiding in Iranian Embassy

Israelis Call Lebanese On The Phone And Tell Them To Move Before They Bomb (Free Jerusalem Post Reg Req)

Domestic

Bush Signs Voting Rights Act Extension (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Sheehan Buys Plot In Crawford With Son's Insurance Money

Newt: I Support Condi

Elections

Michael Schiavo Campaigns For Ned Lamont

McKinney Trailing In New Poll

89% Of All Google Giving Goes To Democrats And Their Organizations While 1% Goes To Republicans

Columns

Greg Gutfeld: Today's Lesson -- The Middle East

Ann Coulter Is Interviewed At Beliefnet

Kay S. Hymowitz: Desperate Grandmas

Victor Davis Hanson: The Vocabulary Of Untruth. Words Take On New Meanings As Israel Struggles To Survive

Charles Krauthammer: Let Israel Win The War

Left-Overs

Tour De France Winner Flunks Drug Test

Landis Denies Doping

Kazaa Must Pay $115 Million, Introduce Filters

Humor: End the Sock Puppetry Please!

Website Of The Day: Dr. Melissa Clouthier

This afternoon, I was pleased to get a chance to talk with Ms. Bayan Rahman, the Chairman of the Kurdistan Development Corporation and the representative to the UK from the government in Kurdistan. For those that don't know, the Kurdistan Development Corporation is the group behind those, "Thank You America," commercials.

Here's an edited transcript from my conversation with Ms. Rahman:

John Hawkins: Tell (us) a little bit about the conflict between the PKK and Turkey...

Bayan Rahman: Well, the PKK has been fighting in Turkey since the 1980's and a large number of people have been killed in that time. There are a small number of PKK...fighters who are in the Qandil mountains, which is a very rugged and high mountain hideout in Kurdistan, but on the border of Kurdistan and Turkey. ...I don't think they carry out any operations from there and the Kurdistan regional government in Iraq doesn't support the PKK in any way.

What's happening now is that the government of Turkey is saying that they want to attack the PKK base and have, in fact, recently been shelling the border area of Kurdistan and Iraq. But, I have to say that they haven't been shelling the area where the PKK is, they've been shelling where there are innocent Iraqi Kurds living, so I'm not really sure what's happening there.

...The question of Kurdistan and Turkey will not go away. It's a fact that there are Kurds who live in Turkey and parts of Kurdistan are inside Turkey's borders. This is a fact that nobody can escape, but we believe in peace, we believe in dialogue, and we think that the best way forward for the Kurds in Turkey and the government in Turkey is to engage in real dialogue...

John Hawkins: Another question: There's some fear that the Kurdish portion of Iraq could break off and form their own state at some point. What do you think the chances of that happening are?

Bayan Rahman: If you ask any Kurd, wherever they are from, they will say that they want to have an independent Kurdistan and as President Barzani, the President of the Kurdistan region has said, "One day Kurdistan will be independent and it is our right to want independence and have independence."

Is that going to happen now? Absolutely unlikely. Highly unlikely. We in the Kurdistan region of Iraq realize that if we were going to call for independence today, it would be tantamount to suicide. What we want and we are fighting for very hard, is to have a united, federal, and democratic Iraq. We believe that if there is real democracy, if there is real federalism in Iraq, this will enable the Kurds to live within the borders of Iraq, to live in peace, ...and to be proud of it.

John Hawkins: In Iraq as a whole -- not in your area per se -- we've a big increase in militia related violence. Why do you think that is and what do you think it will take to put an end to it?

Bayan Rahman: Well in Iraq, there are two or three roots (of violence). One, it's the former Baathists, the former supporters of Saddam Hussein, who can't accept that they are no longer the sole power in Iraq, that power has to be shared between the various groups in Iraq.

There is also an influx of foreign fighters ...fundamentalist Islamists who don't want Iraq to succeed because they want their own agenda of violence and instability in the Middle-East because this is what feeds the Islamist terrorism around the world.

What's the solution? I think the solution really to just fight the terrorism in Iraq...while at the same time opening the door to dialogue. For example, last year, people were saying the Sunnis felt excluded from the political process. Well increasingly, the door is open to the Sunni Arab community to engage in dialogue with the Shia Arabs and the Kurds in Iraq.

So, I think we have to kind of fight on two fronts. We have to physically fight the terrorists and at the same time, we have to let every legitimate group in Iraq feel that they have a share in power, that they feel that they have a share or say in what's going to happen in the future of Iraq.

John Hawkins: Now, I notice that you didn't really mention any Shia groups. Aren't there some Shia groups that are also out there killing a lot of Sunnis...?

Bayan Rahman: There is violence involving different groups in Iraq, yes.

John Hawkins: Ok, Ok...do you think when we have Democratic Politicians in America saying we should withdraw our invitation to the Prime Minister and calling for us to cut and run in Iraq, do you think that it makes things more difficult for the Iraqis and Americans trying to make it work in Iraq?

Bayan Rahman: Well, I think if Americans were to withdraw today or in the very near future, it would be a catastrophe for Iraq. Iraq needs the support of America, Britain, and the other Coalition members until we reach a stage where our economy is able to get going properly and we reach a stage where our military is able to suppress and fight back the terrorists.

We haven't reached that stage; yet and if America were to withdraw now it would just be a catastrophe. I think people who say that (America should withdraw) haven't really understood what the situation is in Iraq. We need America to stay there a bit longer to help us stand up on our own two feet and when that day comes, America can withdraw and feel confident that it has left behind something viable in Iraq.

John Hawkins: Have you had a chance to look at how the American media is covering what's happening in Iraq and if so, do you think they're adequately informing the American people of what's happening.

Bayan Rahman: Well, I am based in the UK and I was a journalist myself until two years ago. So, I am well aware of how the international media reports (on) Iraq and I have always felt frustrated that -- it's true that there is violence, turbulence, and uncertainty in Iraq today. That's true and that's reported on. But, the rest of the story isn't reported on.

...The fact that people in Kurdistan and people in (most of) Iraq are able to go about their daily lives freely and without fear, those things aren't reported on. ...Their readers or viewers in America are given the story, the picture, but they're not given the full picture, the full story.

John Hawkins: Tell us a little bit about the Kurdistan Development Corporation and the message you guys are trying to spread with your ads thanking Americans and Brits for helping your country?

Bayan Rahman: We have launched an advertising campaign in America, which is called "The Other Iraq," because, just as I explained, there is one part of Iraq that is being heavily reported, but the other story of Iraq is not reported and that's what the advertising campaign is about.

The campaign has 2 or 3 messages. The first and fundamental message is that we want to thank America, we want to thank the people of America for liberating Iraq, (for) giving the people of Iraq their first real opportunity to have democracy in our country.

The other parts of the campaign...explain how we in the Kurdistan region are striving to build a Democracy...We have a regional parliament that was elected, we have our own laws, we have rebuilt our infrastructure up to a point. But, we want to build on that and we want make our economy and civil society much stronger. It's really saying that the Kurdistan region is open for business and that the Kurdistan region is the commercial gateway to Iraq....

John Hawkins: I appreciate your time...

Bayan Rahman: Thank you very much, John...

The socialist Dems in Chicago are following Maryland's lead and attempting to stick it to Wal-Mart and other big retail chains foolish enough to continue to do business there:

"After months of fevered lobbying and bitter debate, the Chicago City Council passed a groundbreaking ordinance yesterday requiring “big box” stores, like Wal-Mart and Home Depot, to pay a minimum wage of $10 an hour by 2010, along with at least $3 an hour worth of benefits.

The ordinance, imposing the requirement on stores that occupy more than 90,000 square feet and are part of companies grossing more than $1 billion annually, would be the first in the country to single out large retailers for wage rules.

A gallery packed with supporters of the bill broke into cheers as the measure passed, by a vote of 35 to 14, after four hours of intense speeches and debate.

...An Illinois retailers’ group said it would challenge the measure in court, and Mayor Richard M. Daley, who opposed the measure, has not said whether he will veto it.

...Wal-Mart will still open its nearly completed branch on Chicago’s West Side in September — the company’s first store in the city — but any future plans “will likely change,” Mr. Simley said.

...In existing stores in the Chicago area, Wal-Mart pays entry-level wages of about $7.25 an hour but its average pay is $11 an hour, a company spokesman told The Chicago Tribune. The company has not revealed details of its benefits.

...In a meeting with several black aldermen, Target officials warned that passage of the measure could cause the company to cancel or delay three stores planned for the city’s South Side, the aldermen told reporters.

...The bill would affect 35 stores already in Chicago, including branches of Kmart, Target, Toys “R” Us and stores like Sears and Lowes. Support for the idea started taking off two years ago when Wal-Mart said it would open its first store in the city in 2006, in the poor Austin ward on the West Side."

If, as expected, this bill becomes law -- and the legal challenges fail -- all these big stores should just unceremoniously fire their entire work forces and close their stores. That store Wal-Mart is building? It should never open. What they should do instead is call the press out to the location and knock the building down with a wrecking ball while they give a press conference blaming the new law for destruction of the store.

Know why they should do that? Because if they don't take strong steps, you'll see liberals all over the country -- who despise big companies -- pushing wage control bills like this one. And, these libs care nothing about long-term effects on the economy. Ten years later when the unemployment rate is sky high in these cities, these politicians will either be out of office or pointing the finger elsewhere. So, all they care about is getting pats on the back right now. That's why it's important for these big box companies to put thousands of people out of work now, in an effort to embarrass these pols. If they don't take that step, you can expect to see liberals trying to push similarly backwards, socialistic bills all across the country.

This is early, so don't hold me to it, but...

Dark Horse Races

Debbie Stabenow* (D) vs. Keith Butler (R) or Mike Bouchard (R)
George Allen* (R) vs. James Webb (D)
Jon Kyl* (R) vs. Jim Pederson (D)

Competitive

Michael Steele (R.) vs. The Winner Of Ben Cardin (D.) & Kweisi Mfume (D.) (Dem Seat)
Joe Lieberman* (D/I?) vs. Ned Lamont (D) vs. Alan Schlesinger (R)
Robert Menendez* (D) vs. Tom Kean (R)
Bob Corker (R) or Ed Bryant (R) or Van Hilleary (R) vs. Harold Ford (D) (Rep Seat)

Dogfights

Maria Cantwell* (D) vs. Mike McGavick (R)
Jim Talent* (R) vs. Claire McCaskill (D)
Mark Kennedy (R) vs. Amy Klobuchar (D) (Dem Seat)

Deep Trouble For The Incumbent

Mike DeWine* (R) vs. Sherrod Brown (D)
Conrad Burns* (R) vs. John Tester (D)
Lincoln Chafee* (R) or Steven Laffey (R) vs. Sheldon Whitehouse (D)
Rick Santorum* (R) vs. Bob Casey (D)

* for incumbents

Via Drudge.

"While 59 percent of Americans told an Associated Press poll this month that they disapproved of President Bush's handling of Iraq, 64 percent disapproved of the Democrats' handling of it. While 62 percent of Americans told a Washington Post/ABC News poll last month that they disapproved of Bush's handling of the war, an even higher percentage of respondents, 71 percent, said the Democrats do not offer clear alternatives." -- Derrick Jackson

From Pat Toomey, President of the Club for Growth:

When’s the last time you saw a Republican candidate in a primary election with these groups at the top of his donor list?

AFL-CIO
National Education Association
American Federation of Government Employees
National Active and Retired Federal Employees

Yet those are some of Congressman Joe Schwarz’s top donors, along with 27 other liberal labor unions that have donated well over $125,000 to his campaign.

Schwarz, as you may recall, is the freshman congressman who went on a pork spending spree, including the notorious “Bridge to Nowhere” in Alaska. Schwarz also voted to spend our tax money on a swimming pool in California, an aquarium in Connecticut, an arts center in New York, and much more.

No wonder Citizens against Government Waste rated Schwarz as one of the biggest pork spending Republicans in Congress and endorsed Tim Walberg to replace him.

We can win this race! A recent article in Roll Call newspaper reports that “One Michigan Republican supporting Schwarz, who did not want to be named, said Schwarz-backers are worried. ‘There’s a lot of concern on the ground,’” said the source.

Let’s give them a lot more to be concerned about.

Click HERE to donate to Tim Walberg’s campaign to defeat liberal Congressman Schwarz.

This is a safe Republican district, so the primary winner will be elected in November. Who do you want: a conservative, or a pork-loving, eminent-domain-abuse-supporting RINO? If you care about Congress, this is one place where your donation can really make a difference.

This content was used with the permission of Polipundit.

Foreign

IAF destroys Hizbullah's south Lebanon headquarters (Free Jerusalem Post Reg Req)

Offensive Could Last Weeks - Israeli General

Rome Talks Fail To Yield Lebanon Ceasefire

Hezbollah Fighters Kill 9 Israeli Soldiers

IDF kills 23 Palestinians in Gaza

Claim: Iran 'Not Hiding Hezbollah Boss'

Olmert: Hizbullah To Learn The Hard Way

Mexican Al Gore Says He Is President, Vows Protests

Domestic

Yates Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity

Howard Dean: Dean Calls Iraqi PM An 'Anti-Semite

Chicago City Council OKs 'Living Wage'

Washington: State Supreme Court Today Decided 5-4 That Washington's Law Limiting Marriage To One Man And One Woman Does Not Violate The State Constitution

Muslims Fret Over FBI's Hizbullah Probe (Free Jerusalem Post Reg Req)

Elections

'Straight Talk' About Blog Disclosures

What Would Happen If Harris Won Primary, Then Quit?

Howard Dean Compares Katherine Harris To Stalin

Ken Blackwell: Homosexuality Is A "Transgression Against God’s Law" That Can Be Cured

Columns

Alan M. Dershowitz: Hizbullah's Real Goal Is Racist: To Free The Middle East Holy Lands Of Jews

Rush Limbaugh: Unseemly Democrat Reaction To Maliki Serves To Illustrate Who They Really Are

Thomas Sowell: More Amnesty Fraud

Ann Coulter: More Of John Kerry's Retroactive Campaign Promises

Robert Novak: Losing An Issue

Left-Overs

Pakistan: Man Freed After Murder Victim Found Alive

Man Tries To Rob Gun Shop With Machete. It Doesn't Go Well.

Club-Wielding Chimp Sought In California

Website Of The Day: Protest Warrior

Had the war we're seeing today in the Middle East broken out a century and a half ago, it would have been rather short indeed because the stronger force, the Israelis, would have simply massacred all their enemies. Today, in a more moral age, we find such acts to be savage and barbaric -- as well we should.

However, while civilians should be protected in wartime, we also need to recognize that such protection can, and in fact has, gone too far in many instances.

In Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, the people have voted terrorist groups into office that have openly called for genocide against Israel. Furthermore, both Hamas and Hezbollah have launched terrorist attacks against Israel in the past and the people who voted for them had every expectation that they would do so again.

Additionally, neither of these terrorist groups wears uniforms, follows any rules of war, or makes any effort whatsoever to clearly distinguish themselves from civilians. To the contrary, these terrorists use civilians as shields, store munitions in private residences, and they fire on enemy troops from hospitals, mosques, and schools. Then after all of that, they deliberately and indiscriminately murder Israeli civilians while using their own civilian dead as mere propaganda tools.

This begs a number of questions. Why should Israel take great care not to harm Palestinian and Lebanese civilians when Israeli civilians don't receive the same courtesy? If Hamas and Hezbollah deliberately place legitimate military targets in areas frequented by civilians, why should Israel show greater concern for the safety of those civilians than their own government did in the first place? Since the people of Lebanon and the Palestinian territories have chosen to support Hezbollah and Hamas at the ballot box, despite knowing the tactics that they use, haven't those civilians essentially agreed to serve on the front line of any conflict as human shields?

Usually all such questions are simply shrugged off and Israel is held to a considerably higher standard than her enemies, which are held to no standards whatsoever. However, Israel's first duty is to her own citizens, not to world opinion. If the only way Israel can protect its citizens from hostile foreign states is by meting out "collective punishment" as part of a "disproportionate response," then that is what the Israelis should do regardless of the dangers or inconveniences that are inflicted upon the civilian populations of her enemies.

After all, consider the perverse status quo in the region. We have terrorist groups in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, regularly advocating genocide against Israel and following up their words with bloody attacks, even though the Israelis are capable of bombing them both back to the stone age in a matter of months. Yet and still, sizable percentages of civilians in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories are so nonplussed by the prospect of a conflict with Israel, that they go to the polls and enthusiastically support terrorists who are sure to drag them into war. That would seem to be a strong indication that Israel isn't being sufficiently hard on her enemies.

In other words, if anything, Israel's response isn't "disproportionate" enough. War isn't a game of softball that you call off if one side gets too far behind. When the agents of one nation commit an act of war against another nation, the idea isn't to do a similar amount of damage to them, it's to remove the threat entirely. That may be achieved by overthrowing their government, crippling their ability to make war, or by simply hitting them so hard that it becomes unthinkable for them to launch another attack.

Because Israel has been unwilling and/or unable to do this to their enemies, they've been stuck in a state of perpetual war since their founding despite the fact that they're the most powerful nation in the region. In effect, the Israelis have always preferred to allow their own civilians to die in a perpetual, low-intensity war than to use a sufficient level of force to convince their enemies to leave them alone.

However, the "cycle of violence" doesn't have to continue. As Curtis Lemay once said, "If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting." If the Israelis are willing to kill enough of their enemies and destroy enough of their property, eventually they will be left alone. But, if that's ever going to happen, Israel needs to stop treating civilians in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories like innocent victims of the terrorist groups they support. These civilians have voted these terrorists into office, they've encouraged them to make war on Israel, and they've allowed their homes, schools, mosques, ambulances, and even children to become part of the fight. Because of that, it's time for Israel to make the civilians in Lebanon and in the Palestinian territories pay a much steeper price for their actions than they have in the past.

Via K-Lo at The Corner:

Senator Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Bust To Be Unveiled at the Museum of Sex

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE- New York, NY- July, 26 2006—- A presidential bust of Hillary Clinton is set to be unveiled at the Museum of Sex on August 9, 2006 at 10 am. Accentuating her sexual power and bolstered by the presidential seal, The Presidential Bust of Hillary Rodham Clinton: The First Woman President of the United States of America will be officially open for public viewing on August 9 for a limited six week run.

Artist Daniel Edwards describes this new sculpture as capturing Clinton “with her head held high, a youthful spirit and a face matured by wisdom. Presented in a low cut gown, her cleavage is on display prominently portraying sexual power which some people still consider too threatening.”...

This is an extremely odd sculpture. First of all, Hillary's breasts are nowhere near that perfect, but you can write that off to a liberal idealizing her. But then, puzzlingly, the artist portrays her as having this long, ultra thin, jogger's neck -- which is odd. Then you get to the face and it's worse. In fact, from the top lip up, the artist made her almost look like a wrinkled, effeminate man. You can practically see the mustache.

Creepy!

From the speech the Democrats didn't want the American people to hear:

"Let me begin by thanking the American people, through you, on behalf of the Iraqi people, for supporting our people and ousting dictatorship. Iraq will not forget those who stood with her and who continues to stand with her in times of need.

Thank you for your continued resolve in helping us fight the terrorists plaguing Iraq, which is a struggle to defend our nation's democracy and our people who aspire to liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. All of those are not Western values; they are universal values for humanity."

"I know that some of you here question whether Iraq is part of the war on terror. Let me be very clear: This is a battle between true Islam, for which a person's liberty and rights constitute essential cornerstones, and terrorism, which wraps itself in a fake Islamic cloak; in reality, waging a war on Islam and Muslims and values."

"Thousands of lives were tragically lost on September 11th when these impostors of Islam reared their ugly head. Thousands more continue to die in Iraq today at the hands of the same terrorists who show complete disregard for human life. Your loss on that day was the loss of all mankind, and our loss today is lost for all free people."

"The fate of our country and yours is tied. Should democracy be allowed to fail in Iraq and terror permitted to triumph, then the war on terror will never be won elsewhere."

"Ladies and gentlemen, in a short space of time, Iraq has gone from a dictatorship to a transitional administration, and now to a fully fledged democratic government.

This has happened despite the best efforts of the terrorists who are bent on either destroying democracy or Iraq, but by the courage of our people who defied the terrorists every time they were called upon to make a choice, by risking their lives for the ballot box. They have stated over and over again, with their ink-stained fingers waving in pride, that they will always make the same choice."

"The journey has been perilous, and the future is not guaranteed. Yet many around the world who underestimated the resolve of Iraq's people and were sure that we would never reach this stage. Few believed in us. But you, the American people, did, and we are grateful for this."

"What used to be a state-controlled media is now completely free and uncensored, something Iraq had never witnessed since its establishment as a modern state and something which remains alien to most of the region.

...In the past three years, our GDP per capita has more than doubled. And it is expected that our economy will continue to grow. Standards of living have been raised for most Iraqis as the markets witness an unprecedented level of prosperity. Many individuals are buying products and appliances which they would never have hoped to afford in the past.

...We have gone from mass graves and torture chambers and chemical weapons to a flourishing -- to the rule of law and human rights.

...I am proud to say that a quarter of Iraq's Council of Representatives is made up of women..."

"For the sake of success of the political process, I launched the National Reconciliation Initiative, which aims to draw in groups willing to accept the logic of dialogue and participation. This olive branch has received the backing of Iraq's parliamentary blocs and support further afield from large segments of the population.

I remain determined to see this initiative succeed.

But let our enemies not mistake our outstretched hand for forgiveness as a sign of weakness. Whoever chooses violence against the people of Iraq, then the fate that awaits them will be the same that of the terrorist Zarqawi."

The other impediment to Iraq's stability are the armed militias. I have on many occasions stated my determination to disband all militias without exception...

... and re-establish a state monopoly on arms and to guarantee citizens security so that they do not need others to provide it.

I will not allow Iraq to become a launch pad for Al Qaida and other terrorist organizations.

I will not allow terror to rob Iraqis of their hopes and dreams. I will not allow terrorists to dictate to us our future.

"The coming few days are difficult and the challenges are considerable. Iraq and America both need each other to defeat the terror engulfing the free world.

In partnership, we will be triumphant because we will never be slaves to terror, for God has made us free.

...Trust that Iraq will be the graveyard for terrorism and terrorists for the good of all humanity."

Kofi is still yammering on about the UN Peace Keeper post that Israel popped -- nothing surprising there. But, this is a bit of a surprise:

"The UN general secretary, Kofi Annan, today accused the Israeli military of carrying out a sustained bombing of the UN base on the Lebanon-Israel border that culminated in the killing of four unarmed monitors.

Mr Annan said he had suggested to the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, that they carry out a joint investigation into the events that led to the shelling of the "well-established and well marked" Unifil (UN interim force in Lebanon) post in the town of Khiyam.

"I spoke to Mr Olmert and he definitely believes it was a mistake and has expressed his deep sorrow, " Mr Annan told a press conference in Rome.

"But the shelling started in the morning and went on until after 7pm. You cannot imagine the anguish of the unarmed men and women peacekeepers who were there."

What exactly is the purpose of these "peacekeepers" supposed to be doing there? They're not armed, they don't stop terrorism against Israel, they don't do any actual "peacekeeping". So, what are they good for? Why are there? Is there any point to have them there now? Is there any point to have them there, ever? Isn't it time for them to leave?

Over at the Democratic Underground, a thread called, "How f..king stupid are Americans?" caught my eye. Here's the full text of the original post:

Marmar: Sorry if I've missed threads on the new Harris poll, but I'm listening to the rebroadcast of yesterday's Thom Hartmann show and can't believe what I'm hearing:

- 50 percent of Americans believe Iraq had WMDs, based on that pathetic and embarassing Santorum and Hoekstra charade.

- 72 percent of Americans believe Iraqis are better off, post-U.S. invasion.

Que?

How can so many people in the world's richest, most powerful nation that allegedly has the best of everything be as dumb as a bag of rocks?

Somebody stop this ride - I wanna get off!

So, let me get this straight. The 50% of Americans who correctly said Iraq had WMDs are stupid, apparently, because he doesn't like Santorum and Hoekstra...or something. There doesn't seem to be any controversy over whether the 500 WMDs exist, so it's hard to figure out exactly what he's driving at.

Then, he thinks Americans are stupid for believing the Iraqis are better off under a Democracy than under the iron fisted rule of a man who killed Iraqis day in and day out, at a much greater rate than the terrorists and militias have. In other words, Americans are dumb for believing that the Iraqi people prefer democracy to Saddam.

So, did the other DUers agree with him? Not all of them, but here are a few who did:

alyce douglas: "Ignorance is bliss for some American citizens total misrepresentation of the facts, or there are some who do not believe in the facts."

oots: "USA USA USA USA.. We Don't Care.. We Don't Care.. We Don't Care. Dumber than a bag of bricks..."

Double T: "The majority of the American public are gullible suckers.......that will believe anything and repeatedly change their minds on important issues. And you wonder why we are where we are???"

Nimrod2005: "This is a f*cking beautiful post, thank you...Answer:

Very very stupid...Twice as stupid as they look and 10 times as stupid as anyone you know.

I think 99% of all Americans households DO NOT watch the nightly news...Know nothing about nothing (foreign policy or political affairs...etc)."

leftofthedial: stupid all the way to the bone and as gullible as a yokel fresh off the turnip truck in my experience and did I mention ignorant?

The DU is a real window into the liberal mind, isn't it?

I've been dogsitting since yesterday and it's so far, so good, although Patton is still watching the other dog, Sam, like a hawk. As long as I don't toss any treats in between the two of them, I think they're going to be fine. In fact, they're amazingly quiet and sedate together for some reason...

If you want to see how non-serious the Democrats are about foreign affairs, then look no further than their call to disinvite Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to speak in front of a joint session of Congress:

"Al-Maliki, a Shiite Muslim, was quoted in The New York Times and elsewhere calling Israel the aggressor in the conflict with Hezbollah, the Iranian- and Syrian-backed terror group that has been launching rockets at Israel from civilian communities in southern Lebanon. The latest armed conflict began nearly two weeks ago when Hezbollah terrorists crossed the northern Israeli border, kidnapped two soldiers and killed three others.

"The Israeli attacks and airstrikes are completely destroying Lebanon’s infrastructure,” al-Maliki is quoted in the paper as saying last Wednesday during a news conference in Baghdad. “I condemn these aggressions and call on the Arab League foreign ministers’ meeting in Cairo to take quick action to stop these aggressions. We call on the world to take quick stands to stop the Israeli aggression.”

House Democrats on Monday crafted a letter to Hastert urging him to cancel the speech by al-Maliki to the chamber. The letter, which was being circulated for signatures, argues that if the Iraqi leader's positions are at odds with U.S. foreign policy goals then he should not be given the honor of giving an address from the speaker's podium."

Yes, let's publicly insult the Iraqi Prime Minister and send him back to Iraq with his tail between his legs for holding the exact same position as the UN, the leader of almost every nation in Europe, and most of the diarists at the Daily Kos. It's nonsensical.

Then, what's this all about? Well, look at what's happening. Democrats are running the most prominent Jew in their Party, Joe Lieberman, out of town on a rail while prominent liberal blogs are publicly wishing that Israel didn't exist. So, this is really just a publicity stunt, a way to show that the Democrats still love Jews despite the evidence to the contrary.

Of course, the Democrats expect the party that takes foreign policy seriously, the Republicans, to do the right thing and keep al-Maliki on the schedule -- and the GOP will.

But, this just goes to show you what a foreign policy joke the Democrats are. Let's say they actually got their way and we humiliated the Iraqi Prime Minister in this manner. Could it foul up our relationship with the Iraqis? Absolutely. Could it cause our cooperation to break down and thereby help the terrorists? Absolutely. As a result, could we see American soldiers in the field die because Democrats wanted to play political games back home? Absolutely.

It's the, "same old, same old," from a Party that proves time and time again that they can't be trusted with America's security.

A lot of people on the right side of the blogosphere are unhappy with Michael Steele because of these comments, which he thought he was making anonymously to WAPO reporter Dana Milbank:

"In 2001, we were attacked and the president is on the ground, on a mound with his arm around the fireman, symbol of America," he said, between bites of hanger steak and risotto. "In Katrina, the president is at 30,000 feet in an airplane looking down at people dying, living on a bridge. And that disconnect, I think, sums up, for me at least, the frustration that Americans feel."

The response to Katrina was "a monumental failure," he continued. "We became so powerful in our ivory towers, in our gated communities. We forgot that there are poor people." The detachment remained after the storm, he said. "I could see that they weren't getting it, they weren't necessarily clued in. . . . For me, the seminal moment was the [Dubai] port decision."

Of course, picking on Bush for Katrina and the Dubai ports is hardly a daring position, even for a Republican. And in some cases, the candidate hit Bush from the right, such as when he opposed Bush's proposed guest-worker program for immigrants. "Republicans aren't very happy people right now," he argued. "The base is kind of ticked off."

He spoke of his party affiliation as though it were a congenital defect rather than a choice. "It's an impediment. It's a hurdle I have to overcome," he said. "I've got an 'R' here, a scarlet letter."

That left the candidate in a difficult spot. "For me to pretend I'm not a Republican would be a lie," he reasoned. But to run as a proud Republican? "That's going to be tough, it's going to be tough to do," he said. "If this race is about Republicans and Democrats, I lose."

Milbank really screwed Steele here because he got him to make the comments anonymously and then described him like so, "The candidate, immersed in one of the most competitive Senate races in the country..." There were only a handful of people that could possibly be and so it was just a matter of time until people figured out who the "anonymous" candidate was.

Of course, any liberal reporter like Milbank is going to love nothing better than to stick it to a Republican any way he can and so Steele should have known better than to say something like this to him if he didn't want his name attached.

But, in Steele's defense, he's in a state that went 56-43 for Kerry in 2004 and Bush is a lot less popular now. Moreover, for Steele to win, he's going to probably need to pull 20-25% of black voters in Maryland and they typically vote monolithically for anyone with a (D) beside of their name. So, it's easy to understand where he's coming from.

Also, let me add that what people have seen are the parts of his comments that Dana Milbank chose to pick out. It's not like they represented the whole conversation, as Steele's spokesman made clear to National Review:

Talking to the campaign earlier today, a spokesman who was at the lunch said he considered the piece a misrepresentation of the overall tone of the lunch. Steele, he said, didn’t “berate” the president over lunch, he “didn’t spend 90 minutes attacking the president.” He “was critical, sure,” but he also praised the president on “growth of the economy, record-low unemployment,” and his speech to the NAACP, among other things.

So, while I'm not thrilled with Steele's "Scarlet R" comments, among other things, I think this has been blown up into a bigger deal than it actually should be. Steele basically said the same thing John Thune did last week:

"If I were running in the state this year, you obviously don't embrace the president and his agenda."

Again, that's not the sort of comment you're thrilled to hear a Republican making publicly, but when you have a President who has allowed his approval rating to sink into the mid-to-high thirties, it's the political reality a lot of candidates have to deal with.

Foreign

Israel Plans to Occupy Strip Inside Lebanon (Free New York Times Reg Req)

Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni: "There Can No Longer Be Militias And Terrorist Organizations Such As Hezbollah. Hezbollah Must Be Completely Disarmed. They Should No Longer Have The Ability To Be Armed By Syria And Iran."

Report: 12 Israeli Troops Die In Fighting

IDF Takes Control Of Bint Jbeil. Hezbollah Fires On Them From Mosques, Hospitals, And Schools

4 Killed When Israeli Bomb Hits U.N. Post

Kofi Annan: "I Am Shocked And Deeply Distressed By The Apparently Deliberate Targeting By Israeli Defence Forces Of A UN Observer Post In Southern Lebanon.' (What An Idiot)

Rice Meets With Olmert And Abbas

Lebanese Parliament Speaker Rejects Rice Cease-Fire Proposal

Hezbollah Says Israeli Response A Surprise

Australia: Suburban Islamic Cleric Abdul Nacer Benbrika Wanted To Kill 1000 Australians To "Please Allah"

Domestic

Interstate Abortion Bill Clears Senate. Minors Would Need Parents' Permission (Free WAPO Reg Req)

The Texas Minutemen Question What Chris Simcox Is Doing With The Money He Is Collecting

Steele Admits He Criticized GOP in Interview (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Gallup: Bush Job Approval At 37%

Gallup: 51% Of Americans View Hillary Clinton Favorably And 44% View Her Unfavorably

A Heritage Foundation/Human Events Chat With Ken Blackwell

Mark Kennedy's Latest Ad (I Liked This)

Columns

John Podhoretz: Too Nice To Win? Israel's Dilemma

Mona Charen: Who Brought Us This Nightmare In The Middle-East?

David Frum: Iran's Showdown With The West

Kathryn Jean Lopez: This One’s for the Girls

Human Events: The Top 10 Corporate Welfare Queens

John Boehner: House GOP Says -- Put Security First

Left-Overs

50 Most Beautiful People on Capitol Hill

Brian At Iowa Voice Picks His Top 5 Blogs

The 8 Worst Blog Scandals Ever

Website Of The Day: Seixon

Over at the Washington Times, they have a very strange take on the latest Harris poll:

Half of Americans now say Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the United States invaded the country in 2003 -- up from 36 percent last year, a Harris poll finds. Pollsters deemed the increase both "substantial" and "surprising" in light of persistent press reports to the contrary in recent years.

The survey did not speculate on what caused the shift in opinion, which supports President Bush's original rationale for going to war. Respondents were questioned in early July after the release of a Defense Department intelligence report that revealed coalition forces recovered 500 aging chemical weapons containing mustard or sarin gas nerve agents in Iraq.

"Filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist," said Sen. Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania Republican, during a June 21 press conference detailing the newly declassified information.

Rep. Peter Hoekstra, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, who shared the podium, said, "Iraq was not a WMD-free zone."

The "surprising" thing here isn't that the number of Americans who believe Saddam had WMD's has risen from 36% to 50%, it's that the number isn't 100% since 500 WMDs have been found. Certainly you could argue that the WMDs might be of limited use because of their age or that they weren't part of the ongoing program, but after finding WMD stockpiles in Iraq, it's impossible to successfully argue that Saddam didn't possess them. Of course, he had WMDs!

Also see,

WMD Stockpiles Or No Stockpiles: 11 Reasons Why We Were Right To Hit Iraq

Here's a quick quiz that relates to the picture.

1) If Hezbollah leaders deliberately congregate in areas where there are lots of civilians and the Israelis attempt to assassinate them, which party is responsible for any innocent lives lost?

A) Hezbollah
B) Israel

2) If Hezbollah soldiers set up an ammo dump in a mosque and the Israelis blow it up from the air, which party is responsible for the destruction of the mosque?

A) Hezbollah
B) Israel

3) If members of Hezbollah dress like civilians and fire at Israelis from a crowd, then if the Israelis fire back and innocents are killed, which party is responsible for those deaths?

A) Hezbollah
B) Israel

4) If Hezbollah commits an act of war against Israel and the Israelis respond by destroying bridges, roads, airports, power plants, and banks used by Hezbollah as part of the war effort, which party is responsible for the inconvenience and suffering of Lebanese civilians that this causes?

A) Hezbollah
B) Israel

5) If Hezbollah, unlike Israel, deliberately targets civilians in an attempt to kill them, which party is responsible for those lost lives?

A) Hezbollah
B) Israel

If you answered "A" to all 5 questions, you're right!

Hat tip to Polipundit for the pic.

"The Americans are 120 percent biased in favor of Israel. That's why Rice is coming to save Israel from defeat and humiliation. The US always intervenes when Israel is in trouble." -- Osama al-Mazini, a Hamas political leader

Dear Condi Rice:

In order to be fair to our friends in the Palestinian territories and Lebanon, please do not stop Hamas and Hezbollah from defeating and humiliating the Israelis by being bombed. Each time Israel blows up another building, kills another terrorist, and drives a tank through another house, their enemies grow closer to victory and the Israelis are apparently growing closer to defeat -- or something.

So, please don't step in.

Still, the Israelis are our friends and so we should keep shipping them bombs and telling them that we support them as they "punch themselves out" by hitting Hamas and the Palestinians again and again, for as long as they want. Then, after the Israelis finally trudge home defeated, over the rubble and corpses of their enemies, perhaps the Palestinian and Lebanese victors will show magnanimity in victory and will negotiate an acceptable end to this whole conflict.

Hope you'll consider it, Condi!

John Hawkins

"Setting aside the fact that the UN is extremely hostile to Israel and has great difficulty raising large numbers of troops, as we've seen over and over again in the past, any UN force that doesn't have the United States or Britain doing most of the heavy lifting isn't capable of fighting its way out of a wet paper bag. Do we want a significant number of our troops in the middle of the fighting over there? No way. Does Britain? Despite having Tony Blair involved in this project, I seriously doubt that they're willing to commit sending a few thousand troops into Lebanon indefinitely to try to ride herd on Hezbollah.

So, could the UN put enough quality troops on the ground to keep Hezbollah from firing rockets into Israel? It's highly doubtful. Even if they could, would the countries that supplied those troops be willing to hang in there after they lost soldiers in a terrorist attack? Again, highly doubtful. Heck, even if there were enough troops and they stuck in there, given the UN's institutional bias against Israel, why would anyone think that they'd actually be willing to use force to stop Hezbollah from killing Israelis?" -- John Hawkins, on July 17, 2006

"Support is building quickly for an international military force to be placed in southern Lebanon, but there remains a small problem: where will the troops come from?

The United States has ruled out its soldiers participating, NATO says it is overstretched, Britain feels its troops are overcommitted and Germany says it is willing to participate only if Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia which it would police, agrees to it, a highly unlikely development.

“All the politicians are saying, ‘Great, great’ to the idea of a force, but no one is saying whose soldiers will be on the ground,” said one senior European official. “Everyone will volunteer to be in charge of the logistics in Cyprus.”

There has been strong verbal support for such a force in public, but also private concerns that soldiers would be seen as allied to Israel and would have to fight Hezbollah guerrillas who do not want foreigners, let alone the Lebanese Army, coming between themselves and the Israelis." -- The New York Times, July 24, 2006

You've just got to love that last line,

There are, "private concerns that soldiers would be seen as allied to Israel and would have to fight Hezbollah guerrillas who do not want foreigners, let alone the Lebanese Army, coming between themselves and the Israelis."

What good is a peace keeping force that's not actually willing to fight to keep the peace? Moreover, if Israel is willing to accept a NATO force in Lebanon to prevent a conflict and Hezbollah isn't, what does that tell you about which party is the aggressor, which party wants the fighting to continue, and which party wants peace? If you have half a brain in your head, it tells you everything you need to know.

Over at the rabidly pro-illegal immigration Wall Street Journal, Brendan Miniter is offering up one of the more bizarre defenses of the Senate Amnesty Bill that has been presented so far:

"Today the Republican Party again confronts the choice of whether to cut the overall size of the welfare state--by reforming Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other entitlements--or going after illegal aliens. And so far it appears the GOP is heading down the same road California Republicans took a decade ago. Faced with a tough re-election cycle this year, congressional Republicans opted to make immigration reform a central issue. Rather than lasting reform, however, what the party is getting so far is gridlock, or, worse, reforms that would strengthen the GOP's political opposition.

Buried deep in the Senate's legislation--which would create a guest worker program--is a requirement that employers who hire guest workers pay them a "prevailing wage." First enacted in 1931 in the Davis Bacon Act to insulate unionized Northern contractors from competition with black migrant workers from the South for federal contracts, federal prevailing wage laws have long served the interests of Big Labor. Expanding Davis Bacon provisions to cover guest workers would set a dangerous precedent for extending prevailing-wage mandates to other private employers. It's hard to see how increasing labor costs to give organized labor a leg up is good for either the economy or the Republican Party, but then it's a predictable outcome from a divided political party that has lost sight of its small-government principles.

This isn't a position Republicans had to put themselves in. Voters angry over the cost of illegal immigration are also angry over the steep price they pay through taxes for generous government benefits. Getting big government off the back of taxpayers once united the party and handed it the confidence of the voting public."

What in the world is he talking about? Why would being for smaller government not be compatible with being tough on illegal immigration? In fact, other than a few exceptions, aren't most of the RINOS who keep ruining our chances to cut the size of government in favor of the Senate Bill?

Furthermore, isn't it the House Bill that opposes giving the illegal aliens anything but a one way ticket out of town while the Senate Bill suggests giving them Social Security, cheaper college than Americans, and earned income tax credits? You want to see the national debt balloon? Then turn 12-20 million illegal aliens with minimal education and skills into American citizens and watch as they put us hundreds of billions of dollars further into the red by soaking up welfare, food stamps, the earned income tax credit and every other goodie they'll be entitled to as American citizens. Without question, over the long haul, it would be cheaper to get rid of them.

Moreover, the Davis Bacon provision is in the Senate's Amnesty Bill, which is the bill favored by people who aren't serious about stopping illegal immigration. So, if Miniter has a problem with that, he should complain about John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Mike DeWine, and the other Republicans in the Senate who've, "lost sight of (their) small-government principles" by supporting a bill containing such a provision in the first place.

However, the real beef Miniter probably has with the Davis Bacon provision is that it makes "cheap labor" very expensive. If businesses have to pay illegals wages as high as or higher than those of American workers along with paying their taxes and social security as part of a guest worker program, then it'll kill the whole program -- which is ironic, isn't it? The open borders business crowd cut a deal with the devil to get this Amnesty bill through and now they've finally realized that their union loving Democratic pals slipped a poison pill into their lunch. Even though they still want the meal, they need their Republican brethren, whom they've been deriding as "nativists" and "xenophobes" to fix their little problem for them before letting them have their way. That would seem to be what Miniter is trying to help accomplish, in a roundabout way, with this column.

Hat tip to Daily Pundit for the story.

Foreign

The Israel Defense Forces Chief Of Military Intelligence, Amos Yadlin, Said Sunday That Close To 2,200 Hezbollah Rockets Have Been Destroyed By The IDF During Its Offensive On Lebanon Over The Last Two Weeks.

Gaza Groups Ready To Deal On Cease-Fire, Release Of Shalit (This Isn't Much Of A Deal For Israel)

Hezbollah Banks Under Attack In Lebanon. Israel Seeks To Destroy Group’s Financial Infrastructure

U.N. Chief Accuses Hezbollah Of 'Cowardly Blending' Among Refugees

Hezbollah Rejects Ceasefire Plan Put Forward By United States

PM Olmert: Syria Cannot Be A Partner To Diplomatic Efforts

Nations Reluctant To Commit Troops To Lebanon (Free New York Times Reg Req)

Saddam Trial Resumes For Closing Arguments

Somali Islamist Leaders: 'God Told Us To Fight Ethiopia'

Venezuela To Buy A Billion Dollars Worth Of Weapons From Russia

Domestic

President Bush On Monday Signed A Bill That Would Bar Condominium And Homeowner Associations From Restricting How The American Flag Can Be Displayed

Specter Prepping Bill To Sue Bush

John Cornyn And John Kyl Request For Supplemental Funding To Secure The U.S. Border

Nobel Peace Laureate Betty Williams: "Right Now, I Would Love To Kill George Bush." Her Young Audience At The Brisbane City Hall Clapped And Cheered.

Watch Your Back When Fox News Wishes Well (Some Of These Are Really Funny)

Elections

According To A WSJ/Zogby Poll: Wisconsin And Michigan Are In Play For The GOP

WSJ/Zogby poll: George Allen Up By 10 And Rick Santorum Is Down By 9

George Allen Tops In GOP 'Insider' Poll For 2008

Bill Clinton Campaigning For Lieberman

Patrick Hynes Of Ankle Biting Pundits Is Hired By John McCain

Columns

Dean Barnett: Kos, Hezbollah, and Israel

Heather Mac Donald: Myth Debunked. A Latin Conservative Tidal Wave Is Not Coming

Dennis Prager: Israel's War Separates Decent Left From Indecent Left

Thomas Sowell: Then And Now

Left-Overs

At The Heritage Foundation This Week It Was Announced That Ed Morrissey Of Captain’s Quarters Will Begin Blogging Regularly On The Heritage Policy Blog

Pics From An Anti-Israel Protest In London On July 22, 2006

'South Park's' Trey, Matt Spill On Mohammad, George Clooney

Democrat Robert Wexler Falls Into Steven Colbert's Trap -- And He's Not Laughing

Humor: Top Ten Ways In Which Keith Olbermann Alleges Bill O'Reilly Is Just Like Hitler

Website Of The Day: Solomonia

Once again, Senator Flip-Flop has decided to remind Americans of why they couldn't trust him to handle foreign policy in 2004:

"U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D- Mass., who was in town Sunday to help Gov. Jennifer Granholm campaign for her re-election bid, took time to take a jab at the Bush administration for its lack of leadership in the Israeli-Lebanon conflict.

"If I was president, this wouldn't have happened," said Kerry during a noon stop at Honest John's bar and grill in Detroit's Cass Corridor.

...Hezbollah guerillas should have been targeted with other terrorist organizations, such as al-Qaida and the Taliban, which operate in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Kerry said. However, Bush, has focused military strength on Iraq.

"This is about American security and Bush has failed. He has made it so much worse because of his lack of reality in going into Iraq.…We have to destroy Hezbollah," he said.

So, the Israeli attack on Hezbollah wouldn't have happened if Kerry were President? Does that mean he would have stopped Hezbollah from kidnapping those Israeli soldiers and firing those rockets or that he would have prevented Israel from responding?

Maybe he means that the United States should have destroyed Hezbollah instead of the Israelis? So, is he saying that he thinks we should have declared war on Lebanon and sent in American troops? From our point of view, isn't it better to have the Israelis fighting Hezbollah than us?

Whatever the case may be, I certainly don't remember Kerry promising to go to war against Hezbollah or their backers in Iran and Syria when he was running for office in 2004. Do you? So, perhaps he was thinking of something else. Maybe he would have made Hezbollah face a fearsome "global test" and they would have crumbled after getting a harshly worded letter signed both by Kofi Annan AND the French! That could be the solution he was considering.

On the other hand, maybe "President Kerry" could have gotten some advice from diplomatic genius Bill Clinton, who convinced the Israelis to allow Yassir Arafat to return to the Palestinian territories and then stood by, watching helplessly, as the old terrorist he had helped put back into power got the Second Palestinian Intifada started.

The bottom line is that if Kerry really wants to see Hezbollah destroyed, then what's happening in the Middle-East right now is a good thing. On the other hand, if Kerry believes keeping the peace is more important than crippling Hezbollah, then he should be opposed to the Israeli attacks. However, just as he did all during the 2004 elections on Iraq, Kerry wants to be on both sides of the argument. He wants to argue that Hezbollah should be destroyed, while simultaneously opposing attacks on Hezbollah. That's why John Kerry is the wrong man, at the wrong time, in the wrong party to lead this country in the war on terrorism.

Over at GOPbloggers, they've polled the readers on the right side of the blogosphere to find out which candidates they found to be acceptable and unacceptable as the GOP's nominee in 2008. They've had over 6000 responses (including more than 1880 from Right Wing News) and here's how things broke out:

The Top Tier Candidates

George Allen: 69% acceptable and 18.3% unacceptable = +50.7%
Newt Gingrich: 63.1% acceptable and 28% unacceptable = 35.1%
Rudy Giuliani: 57.6% acceptable and 33.2% unacceptable = 24.4%

2nd Tier Candidates

Mitt Romney: 50.9% acceptable and 34.6% unacceptable = +16.3%
Tom Tancredo: 45.2% acceptable and 38.7% unacceptable = +6.5%
Sam Brownback: 37.1% acceptable and 41% unacceptable = -3.9%
Mike Huckabee: 35% acceptable and 40.9% unacceptable = -5.9%

3rd Tier Candidates

John McCain: 21% acceptable and 68.7% unacceptable = -47.7%
Bill Frist: 18.6% acceptable and 66.8% unacceptable = -48.3%
George Pataki: 12.2% acceptable and 71.3%% unacceptable = -59.1%
Chuck Hagel: 10.6% acceptable and 70% unacceptable = -59.4%

The media keeps trying to shoehorn McCain and Giuliani into the front runner position with Romney as the dark horse.

Unfortunately for McCain, independents and Democrats don't get to pick the winner of the Republican primary; conservatives do, and they don't like McCain. Conservatives do seem to like Rudi, but his support of gay marriage, abortion, and gun control (among other left-of-center positions) will keep him from winning. Romney? It seems highly unlikely that any Republican who has done what it takes to thrive in a state as liberal as Massachusetts is going to be able to prove his conservative bona fides to the base.

Then, outside of the big 3, there's Newt. Conservatives absolutely love Gingrich, but they don't love all the personal baggage he's carrying and that will probably keep him from getting the nomination.

So, unless someone new enters the field, there's only one candidate left standing at the top of the heap, almost by default: George Allen. Is that good? Is that bad? Depends on how you look at it, but at the moment, he looks like the man to beat.

You have got to love this headline from the Associated Press:

"Survival may equal victory for Hezbollah"

Isn't that a pretty low threshhold for victory? If the Israelis don't kill ever single member of Hezbollah, then Hezbollah wins? By that standard, didn't the Nazis win World War 2?

But, that's the least of the problems with this article by Hamza Hendawi, which reads like most of it was cribbed from a Hezbollah press release:

"Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah acknowledges that Israeli troops can sweep across south Lebanon. But if he and his militants can survive and keep fighting, he will cement his image as the unlikely new hero of Arab nationalism.

...Anticipating the ground assault, Nasrallah sought to ensure his group's survival and safeguard its widening base of support in Lebanon and abroad by lowering the bar for what would constitute victory.

In a television interview broadcast Friday, he defined victory as a successful defense.

And he acknowledges the gravity of defeat.

"A defeat in Lebanon will end the region's resistance movements, the Palestinian cause and impose Israel's conditions for a settlement," he warned.

His previous warnings were even more dire.

"If Israel is able to defeat the resistance in Palestine and Lebanon, God forbid, then the Arab world, governments and peoples will drown in eternal humiliation from which they will have no way out."

...A fiery orator who deftly mixes threats with lighthearted comments, Nasrallah lost his 18-year-old son, Hadi, during a fight with Israeli troops in 1997. He refused to receive mourners, praised God's "ultimate grace and kindness" for choosing a family member as a martyr and allowed another son, Jawad, to join the guerrillas.

"We love martyrdom," he said on Friday. "But we take precautions to deny the enemy an easy victory."

...Victory or defeat, Nasrallah already has a place in the hearts of millions of Arabs angered and ashamed by their governments' perceived acquiescence to Israeli and U.S. policies.

A defeat on the battlefield is unlikely to change that so long as Hezbollah is seen to have put up a good fight. In fact, it could give the 46-year-old, mid-ranking cleric hero status.

...Charismatic, sharp and media savvy, Nasrallah seems aware of respect and admiration he and his organization enjoy. He speaks with a confidence that sometimes borders on arrogance.

He also taunts his critics in the Arab world, led by key U.S. allies Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan.

"I say to Arab leaders: I don't want your swords and I don't want your hearts ... Leave us alone."

Gosh, what a swell guy Nasrallah is! I guess the whole Arab world should support their new hero, Nasrallah, in the fight against Zionist oppressors! Ok, everyone chant with me, Hez-boll-ah, Hez-boll-ah, Hez-boll-ah! Was that what Hamza Hendawi was going for there?

If Hezbollah is paying this guy, they need to up his salary. If he's not on the payroll, then they should at least send him a birthday present next year. He deserves at least that much of a reward for this Hezbollah propaganda that he managed to get published under the banner of "objective journalism" at the AP.

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

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

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

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

"A Kansas church group that protests at military funerals nationwide filed suit in federal court, saying a Missouri law banning such picketing infringes on religious freedom and free speech.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit Friday in the U.S. District Court in Jefferson City, Mo., on behalf of the fundamentalist Westboro Baptist Church, which has outraged mourning communities by picketing service members' funerals with signs condemning homosexuality.

The church and the Rev. Fred Phelps say God is allowing troops, coal miners and others to be killed because the United States tolerates gay men and lesbians." -- The Washington Post On July 23, 2006

So, Right Wing News, a conservative blog, opposes the picketing of soldier's funerals. On the other hand, the ACLU, a liberal group, supports the picketing of soldier's funerals.

It's even more telling that one of the reasons listed for the ACLU's support of Fred Phelps' right to picket funerals is "religious freedom."

In the ACLU's book, having the 10 Commandments on a Courthouse wall, having a cross on public land, and saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance don't fall under the mantle of "religious freedom," but nutjobs standing outside of funerals screaming about "f*gs" does.

Those would seem to be some rather important differences between what most liberals and most conservatives believe.

You cannot throw a cyber stone on the right side of the blogosphere today without hitting a post about Glenn Greenwald's sock puppets. It's either bloggers trying to prove Glenn Greenwald has sock puppets, other bloggers getting angry at the people claiming Glenn Greenwald has sock puppets, or a third group going, "Wow, Glenn Greenwald has sock puppets!"

Now you, the reader are probably going, "Who the hell is Glenn Greenwald and what do you mean by sock puppets?"

Those are fair questions and they deserve fair answers.

Glenn Greenwald is a liberal blogger who pretends to be a libertarian (you know, like Andrew Sullivan pretends to be a conservative) and he launches a lot of attacks on the right side of the blogosphere. Hence the interest so many conservative bloggers seem to have in sticking it to him.

Now, what are sock puppet identities? They're when a person uses fake identities to try to talk themselves up or defend themselves from attacks. For example, let's say blogger X writes,

"Glenn Greenwald? He's lame!"

If Glenn Greenwald replies in the comments section of that blog under the pseudonym "Ellison" and says something like...

"Stalin killed millions while you spoke ill of Glenn Greenwald. Only God knows which is the greater crime!"

...that is using a sock puppet identity.

Over at Hot Air, Bryan Preston summarizes the case for prosecution against Glenn Greenwald and pronounces him guilty of sock puppetry in the first degree:

"Five different names posted from Greenwald’s IP, defending him using similar syntax and structure, and often between posts and comments made under Greenwald’s own name, across several blogs criticizing Greenwald. And we know that Greenwald is fairly obsessive about checking in on blogs criticizing him and shouting back (which is typical of a fairly new blogger who is unaccustomed to seeing one’s name and arguments shredded with glee, and Greenwald has only been blogging for about 9 months). In one case, the gap between Greenwald and a sock puppet commenting is 9 minutes. In another, the gap is 20 minutes. If you’re only concerned with the IP and the gaps, it’s possible that a housemate posted the comments. If there’s more than one computer on the router in the house, it’s even possible for comments and posts under more than one name to be posted nearly simultaneously. It’s possible. But what the above locks in is that all of the identities are posting to several blogs–blogs Greenwald definitely reads–from the same house, if not necessarily from the same computer.

But then, there’s the syntax argument–that the sock puppets and Greenwald deploy similar arguments in similar styles to the point that they all appear to be the same person. Ace has shown that argument holds up very well. Writing style is a very individual thing; very few people share blog reading habits, similar reactions to criticism, and then follow on with similar writing styles to rebut criticism.

Greenwald has yet to offer a serious defense, conceding that the comments came from his house and insinuating that a housemate posted them. He hasn’t explained the short gaps between comments or the fact that the puppets and he share writing styles, the latter of which casts some strong doubt on Greenwald’s assertion that a housemate posted the comments.

...If I’m on the jury, at this point I convict based on the circumstantial case: Greenwald is guilty of sock puppetry."

So, let's break it all down.

#1) Is Greenwald guilty of sock puppetry? Yes, he probably is.

#2) That being said, it's almost impossible to prove that he posted all the comments unless he admits it because multiple people in the same household can post from multiple computers and all of them can come up as the same IP address if they're using a router.

#3) Given that sock puppetry is just embarrassing, not a serious ethical breach and the difficulty of proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Greenwald is guilty, it's probably not worth spending too much time on the whole thing or worse yet, having knock down, drag out brawls over the topic.

Now you know more than you probably ever wanted to about the whole subject, but at least you'll have a good idea of what everyone's talking about.

Hugh Hewitt looks at the Democratic House members who voted against the resolution supporting Israel and notes how many of them would become committee chairmen if the Democrats took the House.

The final vote on the House resolution supporting Israel was, unlike its counterpart in the Senate, not unanimous. Eight voted against the resolution and four voted "present. All but one, the libertarian leaning Ron Paul, were Democrats, and not just backbenchers. Conyers, Dingell, Rahall, Stark and Abercrombie are ranking members --and presumptive chairs if Democrats regain a majority in November-- of Judiciary, Energy and Commerce, Resources, the Health Subcommittee of Ways and Means, and the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee of Armed Services, respectively.

If Democrats win in November, all these gavels fall into hands of Members who voted against Israel even as she was under a massive and continuing barrage of terrorist rocket attacks.

If the United States' support for Israel is important to you or some of your friends, these might be points you should think about.

This content was used with the permission of Betsy's Page.

Foreign

Israel Punches Into Lebanon As Civilians Flee

Iran: Israel Doomed To 'Destruction'

Condoleezza Rice Will Arrive In Jerusalem Today

Israel Said It Would Accept A NATO-Led International Force To Keep The Peace Along The Border

Day 12 Of Fighting: Some 1,300 Israelis Hurt. 875 Of Them Treated For Shock

Arabs Press Syria to Help End Violence

In Iran’s Streets, Aid to Hezbollah Stirs Resentment (Free New York Times Reg Req)

Hunger-Striking Saddam Hospitalized On Day 17 Of His Fast

Marines In Haditha “Triad” Continue Work With Iraqi Soldiers, Quell Insurgency

Domestic

Employers Held On Charges Of Harboring Illegal Aliens

Judge Who Told Illegal Immigrant To Leave Court Is Dismissed

ACLU Teams Up With Fred Phelps To Fight For The Right To Picket at Troops' Burials

C.I.A. Worker Says Message on Torture Got Her Fired (Free New York Times Reg Req)

Midshipman Lamar S. Owens Jr. Found Not Guilty Of Rape, But Found Guilty of Two Non-Rape Charges (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Elections

Dems May Put Caucus Between Iowa, N.H.

Final Republican And Democratic Fund Raising Numbers For The 2nd Quarter

July/August 2006 Dkos Straw Poll Results

Marist Poll: New Yorkers Prefer Giuliani (52%) Over Clinton (43%) In 2008 (Rudi Should Have Run For Senate)

Is Mark Warner Getting A Pass For His Support Of Lieberman At The Daily Kos?

Columns

Benjamin Netanyahu: No Cease-Fire -- Remove Hezbollah's Missiles--Or Destroy Them

Mark Steyn: Failure To Solve Palestinian Question Empowers Iran

Michael Goodwin: Hezbollah Starts A Fight, So It's Time To Teach Terror A Lesson

Michael Barone: A Refreshing Approach to Mideast Crisis

Left-Overs

Keith Olbermann Wears An O’Reilly Mask While Raising His Right Arm In A Nazi Salute To Mock His On-Air Rival

American Floyd Landis Has Won The Tour De France Here Following The 20th And Final Stage To Succeed Compatriot Lance Armstrong

Mega-Rich Pop Superstar George Michael This Week Sank To New Levels Of Depravity—trawling For Illegal Gay Sex Thrills In A London Park

Humor: Top Ten Signs There's Trouble At The New York Times

Website Of The Day: RightFaith